A not so revolutionary blog about feminism, socialism, activism, travel, nature, life, etc.

Archive for the category “Politics/Ideas”

Lessons from World War I

H. Bradford

11/12/18

November 11, 2018 marks the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. This is a momentous anniversary since our world is still deeply influenced by the outcome of World War I. Yet, in the United States, World War I is not a popular war to learn about. It is not a war that American students love to learn about in the same way the they love World War II, with its villains and seemingly black and white struggle against fascism. Despite its impact on world history, it does not lend itself as many movies and documentaries. When it does, for instance in the popular Wonder Woman film released in 2017, it is warped to resemble World War II to make itself more interesting to American audiences. Of course, World War I is important in its own right and offers important historical lessons. As an activist, it is useful to examine the struggle against World War I, as it was a crucible that tested the ideological mettle of revolutionaries and activists.

World War I- An Introduction

World War I is significant for its brutality, industrialized warfare, and for reshaping the globe. The brutality of the war is massive stain on the blood soaked histories of all imperialist nations. As a low estimate, over 8.5 million combatants died in the war with 21 million wounded and up to 13 million civilian casualties. The nations that went to war were criminal in their barbaric sacrifice of millions of soldiers. For instance, the Russian Empire sent troops into battle armed only with axes, no wire cutters, and without boots. Early in the war, of an army corps of 25,000 soldiers, only one returned to Russia, as the rest were either killed or taken prisoner. In the first month of the war alone, 310,000 Russians were killed, wounded, or taken prisoner. On several occasions, British soldiers were ordered to advance against German trenches, which only resulted in massive bloodshed as they faced machine gun fire and tangled miles of barbed wire fences. When forced to march against the trenches at Loos, 8,000 of 10,000 British soldiers were killed for a gain of less than two miles of occupied territory. In the first two years of the war, Britain had 250,000 dead soldiers for the gain of eight square miles. At the Battle of Verdun, 90,000 British soldiers perished in six weeks. At the Battle of Somme, 57,000 British troops perished in one day and 19,000 in one hour alone. The fighting continued even after the Armistice was signed on 11/11/18, as it was signed at 5 am, but did not go into effect until 11 am. In the twilight between war and peace, 2,738 soldiers died and 8,000 were wounded. The scope of this senseless bloodshed seems unfathomable. The scale of human suffering was magnified by industrial methods of war. World War I saw new weapons, such as tanks, airplanes, giant guns mounted on trains, machine guns (which had been used in previous conflicts such as the Boer war), aerial bombings from zeppelins, submarines, and poison gas. Barbed wire was also a recent invention, which secured the defensive lines of both sides, ensuring a bloody stalemate. The conflict itself resulted in the collapse of empires and the division of colonial spoils (Hochschild, 2011).

Almost everyone who has taken a history class remembers the tired narrative that World War I began in June 1914 with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his pregnant wife, Sofia in Sarajevo by the Bosnian Serb, Gavrilo Princip. This unleashed a chain of events wherein Russia vowed to protect Serbia against an Austro-Hungarian invasion. In turn, Austro-Hungary sought to ally itself with Germany against Russia and France vowed to ally itself with Russia against Germany. Britain justified entering the war on behalf of poor, innocent, neutral, little Belgium (which just years prior was neither poor, innocent, or neutral in King Leopold II’s genocidal rubber extraction from the Congo Free State), a strategic passage for German troops invading France. The narrative goes that World War I was born from the anarchy of alliances. Of course, the causes of the war are far more profound than upkeeping treaties and national friendships. This method of framing the war as a domino of effect treaties renders the possibility of resisting the war invisible. It also ignores that these treaties themselves were the outcome of imperialist countries volleying for power.

For historical context, there were massive changes in Europe during the 1800s. On one hand, the 1800s saw the accelerating decline of the Ottoman Empire, which had been considered the sickman of Europe in terms of empires since it lost at the Battle of Vienna in 1683. Wars and independence movements of the 1800s shrank Ottoman territory as countries such as Greece, Serbia, Egypt, Bulgaria, and later Albania, became independent. The Ottoman Empire was strained by internal debate over modernizing or harkening back to bygone times. The century saw the disbanding of the Janissaries, defeat in the Russo-Turkish war, and the revolt of the Young Turks. The Russo-Turkish War saw the establishment of independent Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Treaty of Berlin awarded Bosnia to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which upset Serbians and inspired the formation of the Black Hand, which fought for reunification with Bosnia as well as unification with other areas populated by Serbians. The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire created territorial concerns as newly emerging countries such as Serbia, Bulgaria, and Albania sought to establish boundaries at the expense of one another. The Balkan Wars fought just prior to the start of WWI came out of these territorial disputes. Thus, the Ottoman entry into WWI on the side of Germany and Austro-Hungary was largely in the interest of retaking lost territories. Likewise, Bulgaria joined the conflict on the side of the Central Powers with the hope of regaining territory lost in the 1913 Balkan War, namely southern Macedonia and Greece (Jankowski, 2013).

While Ottomans were in decline, Germany and Russia were struggling for ascendancy. The 1800s saw the formation of the German state, an outcome of the 1866 war between Prussia and Austro-Hungary and the Germanification of people within this territory under Kaiser Wilhelm II. The 1800s also saw Germany’s entry into the imperialist conquest of the world as it sought to colonize places such as modern day Namibia, Botswana, Cameroon, Rwanda, Burundi, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, etc (Jankowski, 2013). It should also be noted that Germany was 50% larger than its present size with one of Europe’s strongest economies (Hochschild, 2011). The Russian Empire saw its own economy growing with the expansion of railroads and a population twice the size of Germany’s (Hochschild, 2011). Although Russia was hobbled in the 19th century by serfdom and slow industrialization, it won the Russo-Turkish War only to see its gains reversed by the Treaty of Berlin. It was further humiliated by the loss of a 1905 war against Japan and held on to brutal Tsarist autocracy at the cost of hundreds of lives in the face of protests for bread and labor reforms that same year. The 1800s was also a time of Russian imperial expansion into Central Asia and the Caucasus, with interest in expansion as far as India, much to the chagrin of Britain. After losing the 1905 war with Japan, Russia began to expand and modernize its military, which led to Germany doing the same for fear of being eclipsed (Jankowski, 2013). This drive for global conquest and for gobbling up the shrinking territories is again related to imperialism.

German colonies at the turn of the century

Prior to the outbreak of World War I, European powers expected that war was inevitable. British and French officials were expecting Germany to go to war with Russia after Russia’s 1905 uprising. In 1894, France and Russia entered an alliance with one another that if one was attacked by Germany, the other would declare war on Germany to ensure a war on two fronts. France had lost territory (Alsace and Lorraine) in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, so there was a strong desire for revenge among nationalists who wanted to go to war with Germany to reclaim lost land (Tuchman, 1990). Between 1908 and 1913, the arms expenses of the six largest countries of Europe increased by 50% and 5-6% of national budgets were devoted to military spending (Hochschild, 2011). For nine years, Britain and France strategized what a German attack would look like and duly prepared. Belgian had been created as a neutral state in 1830 with Britain a strong proponent of neutrality to secure itself from invasion. In 1913, Germans helped to reorganize the Ottoman Army, which upset Russia. France and Germany had each developed their own war plans, such as France’s Plan 17 and Germany’s Schlieffen Plan (Tuchman, 1990). Even in popular culture in the years leading up to the war, German invasion became a fiction genre. For example, the Daily Mail ran a novel called The Invasion of 1910, which depicted a German invasion of the East coast of England (Hochschild, 2011).

WWI and Imperialism

From a Marxist perspective, the primary cause of World War I was imperialism. Imperialism was the linchpin of the anti-war socialist analysis of World War I, a topic which we be explored in greater detail in the next section. The main proponent of this perspective was Vladimir Lenin, who drew his analysis of imperialism from the writings of Rosa Luxemburg, who wrote The Accumulation of Capital and Nikolai Bukharin, who wrote Imperialism and the World Economy. Lenin also developed his theory based upon economist John Hobson’s Imperialism: A Study and Marxist economist Rudolf Hilferding’s Financial Capital (Nation, 1989). According to Lenin, imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism, characterized by such things as monopoly capital, a monopoly of large banks and financial institutions, the territorial partition of the world, the economic partition of the world by cartels, and the control of raw materials by trusts and the financial oligarchy. Lenin characterized imperialism resulting from a trend towards the concentration of productive power. That is, imperialism features fewer companies with larger worker forces and greater production. To him, the movement towards the monopolization of capital occurred following a series of economic crises in capitalism in 1873 and 1900 (2005) The fusion of capital into larger blocs was an important characteristic of capitalism observed by Karl Marx. It occurred when larger capitalists destroying smaller ones and through the union of smaller capital into larger ones, a process mediated by banks and stock markets. Once there were fewer firms on the playing field, they often united into cartels or agreements to limit competition and divide the market. Banks also became concentrated into fewer powerful banks, which melded with industrial capital and the state (Patniak, 2014). On one hand, imperialism provided the advantage that it increased economic organization, planning, and efficiency, which were economic characteristics that Lenin theorized might serve a transition to socialism. On the other hand, imperialism also resulted in less innovation, stagnation, and an unevenness in concentrations of capital. This unevenness created contradictions in the development of cities versus rural areas, heavy versus light industry, gaps between rich and poor, and gaps between colonies and colonizers. These contradictions created systemic instability in the long run, which cartels could only temporarily stave off (Nation, 1989).

Imperialism resulted in increased competition of state supported monopolies for markets and raw materials. World War I was the result of partitioning the world. In this context, workers were given the choice between fighting for their own national monopolies or making revolution. Lenin believed that workers should turn imperialist war into a civil war against capitalism. This was in contrast to social democrats who wanted workers to fight for their nations or Kautsky who felt workers should defend their nations, but not fight on the offensive. Kautsky had postulated that the world was in a state of ultra imperialism, which would actually result in greater peace and stability as the stakes of war were higher. Rosa Luxemburg believed that capitalism had not yet reached every corner of the globe, so revolution was not yet possible. Thus, there was debate over the nature of imperialism within the socialist movement. To Lenin, imperialism allowed the prospect of revolution in both advanced and colonized countries, since colonized countries were brought into imperialist wars as soldiers (Nation, 1989). For instance, 400,000 African forced laborers died in the war for Great Britain. The first use of poison gas in the war was in April 1915 and the first victims were French troops from North Africa who observed the greenish yellow mist of chlorine, then succumbed to coughing blood and suffocation. Although the horror of zeppelin bombs fell on Britain in May 1915, the first use of zeppelin bombings was actually by Spain and France before the war, to punish Moroccans for uprising. And while Britain justified the war as a matter of self-determination for Belgium, they crushed self-determination for Ireland when 1,750 Irish nationalists rose up in 1916 for independence. Britain sent troops there, eventually out numbering the nationalists 20 to 1. Fifteen of leaders of the uprising were shot, including James Connolly who was already wounded when executed and had to be tied to a chair to be shot (Hochschild, 2011). Further, while the European arena is given more historical attention, battles were fought in colonies as well. In 1916 in south-west Tanzania, Germany fought the the British with an army of about 15,000. Of this number, 12,000 were Africans- who fought other Africans fighting on behalf of the British. Because the borders were created by Europeans and did not represent cultural, historical, or tribal lands, these African soldiers sometimes had to fight members of their family. More than one million East Africans died in World War I (Masebo, 2015). France enlisted 200,000 West Africans to fight on their behalf in the war, calling them Senegalese tirailleurs, even though they came from various West African countries. These soldiers were forcibly recruited, then promised benefits that they were later denied (AFP, 2018). Colonies were inextricably linked, economically and militarily, to imperialist war efforts. Thus, in addition to blaming imperialism for the outbreak of World War I, Lenin postulated that the national struggle of oppressed nationalities was part of the larger struggle against imperialism.

From Forgotten African Battlefields of WWI, CNN

Lenin noted that by 1900, 90% of African territory was controlled by European powers, in contrast to just over 10% in 1876. Polynesia was 98% controlled by European powers compared to 56% in 1876. As of 1900, the world was almost entirely divided between major European powers with the only possibility of redivision. Between 1884 and 1900, France, Britain, Belgium, Portugal, and Germany saw accelerated expansion of their overseas territories. He quoted Cecil Rhode, who saw imperialism as necessary for creating markets for goods and opportunities for surplus British population (Lenin, 2005). By the time World War I began, the banqueting table of capitalists was full. World War I was a means to redistribute these imperialist spoils. Germany sought to test its power against that of Britain and France. To Lenin, one side or the other had to relinquish colonies (Lenin, War and Revolution, 2005). Indeed, World War I resulted in a re-division of the world. The war saw the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, whose territories were divided among the victors. For instance, Syria and Lebanon became French protectorates and Britain took control of Mesopotamia, most of the Arabian peninsula, and Palestine. The United States, a latecomer to the war, cemented its position as a world power. The defeat of Germany resulted in the redistribution of German colonies, such as German East Africa to Britain, part of Mozambique to Portugal, the division of Cameroon between British and French, and the formation of Ghana and Togo under British and French control, respectively. Even New Zealand and Australia gained control of German Pacific island territories German Samoa, German New Guinea, and Nauru. Various states came out of the defeated Austro-Hungarian Empire, including Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, The Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and the Kingdom of Romania. Of course, revolution destroyed the Russian Empire before the conclusion of the war, resulting in the independence of Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia. Poland was constructed of territories lost by Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires.

Socialist Resistance to World War I

Like all wars, there was resistance to World War I. A group that would have been well positioned to resist the outbreak of the war was the socialist movement. However, in August 1914, various socialists in Britain, France, Germany, and Austro-Hungary sided with their national governments in participating in World War I (Partington, 2013). For some context, the Second International was a loose federation of socialist groups which arose out of the collapse of the First International in 1876 over debates related to anarchy led by Bukharin. Between its founding in 1889 to the outbreak of World War I, the Second International saw success in terms of rising standards of living for workers, mass popularity, and electoral success that brought socialists into various governments. One the eve of the war, there were three million socialist party members in Germany, one million in France, and a half million in Great Britain and Austria-Hungary respectively (Nation, 1989). The German Socialist Party was the largest party in the the German legislature. Even in the United States, where socialism was less popular, socialist candidate Eugene Debs garnered 900,000 votes in his 1912 presidential bid (Hochschild, 2011). During this time period, socialists of the Second International certainly had opportunities to debate war, as there was the Balkan Wars, Boer Wars, Italy’s invasion of Libya, and war between Russia and Japan. However, the international failed to develop a cohesive anti-war strategy. As World War I approached, socialists made some efforts to organize against it. For instance, in July 1914 socialists organized modest anti-war protests and there were strikes in St. Petersburg (Nation, 1989) and strikes involving over a million workers in Russia earlier in the year. In July 1914, socialist leaders such as Kerrie Hardie, the working class Scottish socialist parliamentarian from Great Britain, Jean Jaures, the French historian and parliamentarian from the French Section of the Workers International, and Rosa Luxemburg, the Jewish Polish Marxist theorist from the German Socialist Party (SPD), met in Brussels for a Socialist Conference to discuss the impending war. Hardie vowed to call for a general strike should Britain enter a war. Jaures spoke before 7,000 Belgian workers calling for a war on war. Unfortunately, Jaures was assassinated in Paris shortly after this meeting by a nationalist zealot. Nevertheless, there were trade union and leftist organized marches in Trafalgar Square in London against the war, where Hardie again called for a general strike against war (Hochschild, 2011). Despite these agitational efforts, the fate of the international was sealed when on August 4th the German SPD voted for emergency war allocations. Socialists in other European countries followed suit, adopted a “defensist” position in which they opted to suspend class struggle in the interest of defending their nations (Nation, 1989). Only 14 of 111 SPD deputies voted against war allocations (Hoschild, 2011). The fact that the majority of socialists supported the war shattered The Second International, which over the course of the war saw the decline of socialist party membership. For instance, Germany’s SPD lost 63% of its membership between 1914-1916 (Nation, 1989). With millions of members in all of the belligerent countries, positions of political power, and union support, socialists had the power to stop the war. Putting nationalism before internationalism was one of the greatest failures of socialists.

Rosa Luxemburg

Not all socialists agreed with the defensist position and during the course of the war they formed an small opposition within the Second International, a segment of which would eventually became the Third International and Communist Party. This opposition had diverse views, ranging from the Menshevik position that socialists should call for neither victory nor defeat of imperialist powers to Lenin’s position of revolutionary defeatism. As her SPD counterparts were calling for war allocations, Rosa Luxemburg called a meeting at her apartment to oppose the war and strategize how to shore up an anti-war opposition within the party. After this meeting, Karl Liebknecht campaigned around Europe with the slogans that “The Main Enemy is at Home”, “Civil War Not Civil Truce” and echoing Jaures, a call to “Wage War Against War.” They shared a further left position in the party that the only way to end the war was to make revolution. However, both Luxemburg and Liebknecht were arrested in February 1915 (Nation, 1989).

Another early mobilization of socialists against the war was a Women’s International Conference first proposed by Inessa Armand, representing the left faction of the anti-war socialists and organized by Clara Zetkin, who was a centrist within the anti-defensist opposition. Zetkin’s centrist anti-defensist position emphasized peace over making revolution (Nation, 1989). After writing An appeal to Socialist Women of All Countries, Zetkin organized the March 1915 Women’s International Conference in neutral Berne, Switzerland for anti-war socialist women. Although she was not as quick to place blame on the socialists for supporting their governments nor emphasize the need for revolution, Clara Zetkin had a long history of anti-war credentials. She was the secretary of the Women’s Socialist International and which she founded in 1907. She was also one of the founders of International Women’s Day. She was a vocal opponent of British war against Boers in South Africa, articulating this position on a May Day speech in 1900. Later, she was an opponent of the First Balkan War and warned that it could develop into a war between greater European powers (Partington, 2013).

Clara Zetkin

The Women’s International Conference was attended by 28 delegates from 8 countries, who developed resolutions on such things as an immediate end to the war, peace without humiliating conditions on any nation, and reparations for Belgium. A manifesto based upon the conference was published later in June. Again, slogans such as “war on war” and “peace without conquest or annexations” were called for. The role of financial interests such as the arms industry was spotlighted as well as how capitalists used patriotism to dupe workers into fighting in the war and weakening socialism. Russian delegates voted to amend this resolution to clearly blame socialists who had collaborated with capitalist governments and called for women to join illegal revolutionary association to advance the overthrow of capitalism. This amendment was rejected as it was viewed as divisive and called for illegal activity. The British delegation added a amendment that condemned price increases and wage decreases during the war and which welcomed other anti-war activists to join them in struggle. The second part of this resolution was not passed (Partington, 2013). The conference was significant because it was the first anti-war conference attended by representatives from belligerent nations. The conference also set the stage for the Zimmerwald conference, which sought to better organize the opposition within the Second International towards ending the war, reforming the international, or abandoning it (Nation, 1989).

The Zimmerwald Conference began on September 11, 1915 in a small swiss village of Zimmerwald under the auspices that it was the meeting of an Ornithological Society. The conference was attended by 38 individuals from 11 countries. The conference is more famous for its male attendees such as Trotsky, Lenin, Zinoviev, Radek, and Martov. However, several women attended including Henriette Roland-Holst a poet and Social Democratic Party member from the Netherlands, Angelica Balanoff of the Italian Socialist Party, Bertha Thalheimer and Minna Reichert of the SPD in Germany. Henriette Roland-Holst went on to oversee the creation of Der Verbote, a journal which served as a mouthpiece for the ideas of the conference. Clara Zetkin and Rosa Luxemburg were in prison at the time. The conference manifesto blamed the cause of the war on imperialism, demanded an immediate end to the war, peace without annexations, and the restoration of Belgium. Clara Zetkin was actually against the conference because she viewed it as sectarian. A point of contention at the conference was the nature of self-determination. Lenin and the Bolsheviks supported self-determination for oppressed nationalities. Rosa Luxemburg, not in attendance, felt that this was a distraction and that national liberation was impossible under imperialism. Lenin argued that national struggle complimented socialist struggle. Another point of contention was whether or not to break with the Second International. Since defenism was still the majority position among socialists, most members of the opposition feared breaking with the international as it would mean being part of a smaller, less viable organization. Rosa Luxemburg disagreed that it was a matter that the organization should decide from within, but should be a worker initiative (Nation, 1989).

The socialist movement continued to debate strategies and the nature of the war throughout the war. As the war continued, anti-war actions increased. For instance, in July 1916, 60,000 soldiers died in a single day at the Battle of Somme. In the first six months of 1916 alone, here were one million war casualties. It is unsurprising that in May 1916, 10,000 people protested in Potsdamer Platz in Berlin. The protest was organized by Rosa Luxemburg’s socialist organization, The Spartacist League. There were also strikes and demonstrations in Leipzig that year (Nation, 1989). In 1916, 200,000 people signed a petition for peace in Britain (Hochschild, 2011). Of course, the most dramatic event was the strike of workers at the Putilov Arms factory on the 3rd of March, 1917. This spiraled into a general strike in Petrograd, the mutiny of the army, and the abdication of the throne after three hundred years of Romanov rule. The February Revolution in Russia resulted in a Provisional Government. In the months that followed, there were mutinies in France and Germany, general strikes and protests across Europe (Nation, 1989). Following the February revolution, 12,000 Londoners rallied in solidarity with the Russians and activists began organizing soviets. In April 1917, there were mutinies in France, wherein soldiers waved red flags, sang the international, and in one case, soldiers hijacked a train and went back to Paris. French troops were diverted from the front to French cities to quell rebellion. At least 30 French army division created soviets. In Russia, the army fell apart as a million soldiers deserted (Hochschild, 2011). The February revolution strengthened the Bolshevik position within the Zimmerwald left, but it took a second revolution, with the Bolsheviks assumption of power to end the war, as the Provisional Government lacked the political will to exit the war (Nation, 1989).

February Revolution in Petrograd

The new Bolshevik government announced an armistice on December 15, 1918 and sent a delegation to meet the Germans at Brest-Litovsk fortress. The delegation consisted of a woman, soldier, sailor, peasant, worker, and at least two Jewish men, all chosen to represent the new society in Russia. The peasant in the delegation, Stashkov, was pulled from the street randomly, but happened to be a leftist. He had never had wine before the meeting and had the unfortunate habit of calling his fellow delegates “barin” or master. The female delegate, Anastasia Bitsenko, made the German delegates, all from the higher echelons of German society, uneasy, as she had just returned from Siberia after a seven year imprisonment for assassinating the Russian Minister of War. Together, these enemies in terms of class, ideology, and war feasted uneasily in honor of the Russian exit from the conflict (Hochschild, 2011). The terms of this exit were settled by a peace treaty in March 1918, which set the conditions of Russia’s exited the World War I at the cost of territorial concessions to Germany. The armistice between the countries antagonized Russia’s allies (Nation, 1989). Russia’s end to the war meant that Germany could devote an addition half million soldiers to the Western Front. It also resulted in more unrest in the warring countries as activists were emboldened by the Russian revolution and immiserated by the ongoing war. Throughout the war, Germany was blockaded by the Allies, which led to food shortages. German troops were reduced to eating turnips and horse meat and civilians ate dogs and cats. Real wages in Germany declined by half during the war. In turn, German submarines downed over 5,000 allied merchant ships, sending 47,000 tons of meat to the bottom of the sea in the first half of 1917 alone. By 1918, war cost made up 70% of Britain’s GDP. 100,000 workers protested in Manchester against food shortages. In July, rail workers in Britain went on strike. Even the police went on strike for two days, as 12,000 London police walked off the job (Hochschild, 2011).

Lenin had pinned his hopes on revolution spreading across the world. Considering the mutinies, desertions, strikes, and protests in 1918, this does not seem entirely far fetched. British military officials even considered making peace with Germany as a way to contain the threat of the Russian spreading revolution elsewhere. March 1918 saw the founding congress of the Communist Party and the Third International, the final break from the Second International. That same year, there were soviets formed in Germany and a sailor mutiny wherein the sailors raised the red flag. 400,000 Berlin workers went on strike in January 1918 demanding peace, a people’s republic, and workers rights (Hochschild, 2011). Revolutions were attempted in Bavaria, Hungary, Braunschweig, and Berlin. Revolutionaries captured the Kaiser’s palace in Berlin and declared a socialist republic. The Berlin Revolution led by Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebnecht’s Spartacist League was crushed by Social Democratic Party of Germany in alliance with the German Supreme Command (Nation, 1989). Both revolutionaries were captured, tortured, and executed. The SPD, which had led the member parties of the Second International to side with their belligerent governments, went on to crush other uprisings across Germany, taking its place in the Weimar Republic that followed. Suffice to say, the chasm in the socialist movement that began in 1914 had become an irreparable trench of millions dead and the graves of revolutionaries.

Other Resistance to World War I:

The debates and division within the the socialist movement is certainly an interesting aspect of how war was resisted or failed to be resisted. However, there were many other groups involved in resisting World War One. Another natural source of resistance against World War I might have been anarchists, however, like the socialist movement, the anarchist movement split over how to react to the war. A number of leading anarchists, including Peter Kropotkin, signed the Manifesto of the Sixteen in 1916, which argued that victory over the Central Powers was necessary. The manifesto encouraged anarchists to support the Allies. Kropotkin’s support of the Allies may have been the result of a desire to defend France as a progressive country with a revolutionary tradition. To him, defense of France was a defense of the French Revolution. His approach to the war was pragmatic. He felt that any uprising against the war would be small and easily crushed and that there was a responsibility to defend the country from aggression. He viewed Germany as particularly militaristic. The year that the Manifesto of the Sixteen was written was particularly brutal and saw the beginning of British conscription (Adams and Kinna, 2017).

Not all anarchists were as lost on the issue of war as Kropotkin, for instance, Emma Goldman believed that the state had no right to wage war, drafts were illegimate and coercive, and wars were fought by capitalists at the expense of workers. As the United States moved towards war in 1916, she began using her magazine, Mother Earth, to espouse anti-war ideas. Once the United States entered the war, she launched the No-Conscription League. Subsequently, her magazine was banned and she was arrested on June 15, 1917 along with her comrade, Alexander Berkman (War Resistance, Anti-Militarism, and Deportation, 1917-1919, n.d.). Before she was arrested, Goldman had planned on curtailing anti-conscription speeches, as speakers and attendees of her meetings were harassed by soldiers and police. She was arrested for violating the Selective Service Act, which was passed five days before her arrest. The New York Times covered her arrest and trial, blaming her for two riots that had occurred at her meetings. However, the reports of riots were overblown, as the meetings themselves were peaceful until disrupted by police and soldiers who demanded to see draft registration cards from attendees. Goldman did her best to use the trial as a platform for her ideas, arguing that she didn’t actually tell men not to register for the draft, as according to her anarchist beliefs she supported the right of individuals to make their own choices. She also framed her organizing as part of an American tradition of protest and that democracy should not fear frank debate. Despite her efforts of defending herself and ideas, she was sentenced to the maximum sentence of two years (Kennedy, 1999). Upon serving her sentence at Missouri State Penitentiary, she was deported in December 1919 along with other radicals (War Resistance, Anti-Militarism, and Deportation, 1917-1919, n.d.). Interestingly, Goldman had gained U.S. citizenship when she married Jacob Kershner in 1887, but he had his citizenship revoked in 1909. According to the laws at the time, a wife’s citizenship was contingent on the husband’s. Thus, she was deported based upon the citizenship of her dead husband.

Emma Goldman

European anarcho-syndicalists experienced the same split socialists did, as many came out in support of defensism (Nation, 1989). In the United States, The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was the target of propaganda from the Wilson administration, which claimed that they were agents of the kaiser who were trying to sabotage the U.S. war effort (Richard, 2012). The IWW is an international union with ties to both the socialist and anarchist movements. While not specifically anacho-syndicalist, the IWW was founded several anarcho-syndicalists such as Lucy Parsons and William Trautman. Because the IWW was trying to organize industries important to the war such as mining, lumber, and rubber, they were targeted with Red Scare tactics. To avoid persecution, the leadership of the IWW refrained from taking a public stance against the war, but members were free to critique the war. This tactic did not work and in September 1917, the Department of Justice raided 48 IWW halls and arrested 165 members, some of whom had not been active for years (Richard, 2012). One of the members who was arrested as Loiuse Olivereau, who at the time was an anarchist IWW secretary. After the raid of an IWW office that she worked at, she went to the Department of Justice to have some of her property returned. Among this property were anti-war fliers, which were a violation of the Espionage Act. Like Goldman, she went to trial and tried to make a political defense. She defended herself and her ideas, arguing that wartime repression and zealous nationalism were not “American” values. She appealed to plurality and nationalism based upon internationalism. In her pamphlets, she had emphasized that men who avoided war were not cowards, but brave for living by their convictions. The media gave little attention to her arguments, instead portraying her as a radical foreigner with dangerous ideas, as Goldman had been portrayed (Kennedy, 1999). IWW members who were not arrested faced vigilante justice from lynch mobs. For instance, Frank Little was disfigured and hung from a railroad trestle in Butte, Montana. In 1919, Wesley Everest was turned over to a mob by prison guards in Centralia, Washington. He had his teeth knocked out with a rifle butt, was lynched three times, and shot. The coroner deemed the death a suicide (Richard, 2012).

In addition to anarchists and socialists, suffragists were another group of activists with an interest in anti-war organizing. In addition to the March 1915 socialist women’s conference, there was a much larger women’s gathering at The Hague in the Netherlands. April 1915 conference brought over 1300 delegates together and was organized by suffragists under the leadership of Jane Addams. It was mostly attended by middle class, professionals though representatives from trade unions and the Hungarian Agrarian union was also in attendance. Like the socialist movement, the suffragist movement was divided between those who supported their governments and those who were anti-war. For instance, the International Suffrage Alliance did not support the Hague conference. Invitations to the conference put forth the position that the war should be ended peacefully and that women should be given the right to vote. Attendance was difficult, since it meant crossing war torn countries or asking for travel documents, which was often denied (Blasco and Magallon, 2015). Attending the conference was itself illegal and all 28 delegates from Germany were arrested upon their return. 17 of the 20 British delegates were refused passage by ship when they tried to leave Britain (Hochschild, 2011). Like the socialist conference, the The Hague conference made a resolution that territorial gains or conquests should not be recognized, though it put the onus of ending the war on neutral countries rather than working people. There was no call for a “war on war” but for mediation, justice, and diplomacy through a Society of Nations. Some of the points of this resolution were adopted by Woodrow Wilson in his 14 Points (Blasco and Magallon, 2015).

The sentiment of The Hague Conference, which focused on progressive internationalism, was echoed by the Women’s Peace Party before the war. In 1914, 1,500 women marched against World War I in New York. Fannie Garrison Villard, Crystal Eastman, and Madeleine Z Doty organized the first all-female peace organization, The Women’s Peace Party. After the end of the war, the Women’s Peace Party became the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Jensen, 2014). Despite the peaceful orientation, the WPP also promised to defend America from foreign enemies and worked to get Woodrow Wilson elected in 1916. They also framed their peace work as a matter of maternal duty as nurturers. Irrespective of their patriotic politics, they were critiqued for being too nurturing or feminine, as this was viewed by men as having a negative and weakening effect on the public sphere (Kennedy, 1999). At the same time, it seems contradictory that a peace party would support national defense. However, supporting the U.S. war effort might be viewed as an extension of the interest of middle class white women in finding increased state power through voting. The war sharpened the differences between radical and reformist suffragists. The New York State Suffragist Party argued that the Silent Sentinels protest outside of the White House was harassing the government during a time of national stress (Women’s Suffrage and WWI, n.d). Even before the United States entered the war, The National American Woman Suffrage Association wrote a letter to Woodrow Wilson pledging the services of two million suffragists. The letter appeared in the New York Times and promised that the suffragists would remain loyal to the war effort by encouraging women to volunteer in industries left vacant by men at war and collect medical supplies and rations (The History Engine, n.d.). The National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) engaged in patriotic volunteering, but they did not abandon organizing for the vote. NAWSA’s president, Carrie Chapman Catt was a pacifist, but supported the war effort by promoting Liberty Loans, Red Cross drives, and War Savings Stamps. Around the country, suffragists supported the war effort by planting victory gardens, food conservation, Red Cross and volunteering. The National Women’s Party took a more radical approach, and during the war 200 of them picketed the White House and were arrested, went on hunger strikes, and were forcibly fed. In the United States, women finally won the right to vote in 1920, but this mostly impacted white women as Native American women were not U.S. citizens until 1924 and first generation Asian women were not granted the right to vote until after World War II (Jensen, 2014).

Silent Sentinels who protested outside the White House during WWI

The divide in the suffragist movement is illustrated in the Pankhurst family. Sylvia Pankhurst, was a British suffragist who with her mother Emmaline and sisters, Christabel and Adela, founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) (Miles and McGregor, 1993). Emmaline Pankhurst, the matriarch of the family, became engaged in politics after working with poor women to collect data on illegitimate births. She noted that many of these births were caused by rape and also took issue with the fact that female teachers in Manchester made less than their male counterparts. Thus, sexual assault and the wage gap have a long been observed as social problems by feminists. The WPSU did not allow male members, though they infiltrated meetings of the Liberal Party to demand voting rights. The WSPU eventually split over the issue of whether or not they should support candidates. Emmaline Pankhurst was against this, as all of the candidates at the time were male. Charlotte Despards, a novelist, charitable organizer, Poor Law Board member, and proponent of Indian and Irish independence, was for supporting candidates, as she was a supporter of the Independent Labor Party. Despards went on to found the Women’s Freedom League (Hochschild, 2011). Again, male membership and supporting male candidates are still issues that modern feminist groups consider.

The WSPU was the most radical of the British suffragist groups and it engaged in arson, window breaking, and bomb attacks (Miles and McGregor, 1993). The WSPU burned the orchid house at Kew Gardens, smashed a jewel case at the Tower of London, burned a church, and carved out “No Votes, No Golf” on a golf green (Hochschild, 2011). Due to these activities, suffragists were imprisoned and Sylvia herself was arrested nine times between 1913 and 1914. To protest imprisonment, they went on hunger strikes and had to be forcibly fed. Sylvia was expelled from the WSPU for socialist beliefs and founded the East London Federation of Suffragists. Despite their extreme tactics, Emmaline and Christabel became less radical at the outbreak of World War I and ceased their radical tactics, instead supporting the war and handing out white feathers to shame men to who didn’t enlist to fight (Miles and McGregor, 1993). The eldest sister, Christabel traveled to the United States to drum up support for the war. Most British suffragists supported the war effort, which may seem surprising as many had earlier denounced war, gender essentializing it as a masculine endeavor. This turn towards national defense over voting rights was strategic, as it did offer mainstream legitimacy to suffragists who had otherwise been arrested and persecuted. Even the author Rudyard Kipling had expressed concern that the women’s suffrage movement weakened Britain, making it less prepared for war. The WSPU organized a march of 60,000 women, though not against war. The march was to encourage women to buy shells. Perhaps due to their compliance in the war and part because the Russian revolution had granted universal suffrage, women were granted the right to vote in Britain in 1919 (Hochschild, 2011).

As for Sylvia, one of the few anti-war suffragists, she organized ELFS to set of free clinics to mothers and children, a free day care, a Cost Price restaurant, and a toy factory for fundraising. She supported strikes against conscription, the Defense of the Realm Act, protested the execution of James Connolly, and her group was the only British suffragist organization which continued to organize for the vote during the war (Miles and McGregor, 1993). She had even suggested that an anti-war march of 1,000 women should occur in the no man’s land between enemy lines. Throughout the war, she documented the suffering of women, noting that women were forced out of hospital beds to make room for soldiers or struggle to survive on the military pay of their husbands. The wives of deserters received no pension from the government and women were subjected to curfews to avoid cheating and faced imprisonment if they had a venereal disease and had sex with a soldier (Hochschild, 2011).

Sylvia Pankhurst

In 1916, the organization changed its name to the Workers Suffrage Federation and in 1918 to the Workers Socialist Federation. It was the first British organization to affiliate with the Third International and she herself articulated that while women could win the vote under capitalism, they could achieve liberation. She was arrested for sedition in 1920 for urging British sailors to mutiny over poor conditions and for dock workers to resist loading arms to be used by Russian counterrevolutionaries. While in prison, the Workers Socialist Federation joined the Communist Party. She never joined the Communist Party herself and was critical of the New Economic Program (Miles and McGregor, 1993). Sylvia never joined the party, but paid a visit to the Soviet Union, which impressed her. She continued her activism throughout her life, warning about the rise of fascism and drawing attention to Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia. She eventually moved to Ethiopia, where she died at the age of 74.

Conclusion:

Resistance to World War I in many ways seems like a series of stunning betrayals. The socialists, which had the power to stop the war, sided with their national governments at the cost of millions of lives. The hardships of war created the conditions for unrest in many countries, but it was only in Russia where revolution was successful (at a high cost and with lasting consequences to the shape the new society). Suffragists, like socialists, sided with their national governments. This Faustian deal, in some ways, secured the right to vote. Today, women can vote to send women to kill other women in war, just as socialists voted for the money to arm workers to fight other workers. Anarchists were also fractured by the war, when this group seemed the most ideologically unlikely to side with government war mongering! At the same time, activists of all of these groups made hard choices. Anti-war socialists found themselves unable to organize workers early in the war due to their small numbers and the swell of nationalism and prejudices. Any activist organizing against the war faced imprisonment in beligerant countries, and Emma Goldman, Clara Zetkin, and Rosa Luxemburg among many more were arrested. Some activists faced mob justice and death. Still, there are some lessons to be drawn from all of this. A major lesson is the importance of unwavering internationalism. Another lesson is to take a long, principled view of power. Suffragists abandoned their organizing in the interest of legitimacy and national power. In doing so, they made powerful allies, but they also took their place in the state apparatus that oppresses of women. So too, socialists, who enjoyed popularity and a share of state power, crushed other socialists and supported the violent, senseless slaughter of workers to maintain their place in capitalism. Activists should always stand against imperialism and in solidarity with all of the oppressed people of the world. Doing this may mean standing in the minority or at the margins of history making, but it may also mean keeping alive the idea that a better world is possible and the ideas with the power to build movements that make this happen.

The Gender Question: Unpacking

My Pronouns

H. Bradford

10/21/18

Wednesday October 17th was the first International Gender Pronouns Day. The goal of the day is to raise awareness of gender pronouns, including referring to people by their preferred pronouns and normalizing asking about the pronouns. In activist circles, this is increasingly becoming commonplace. Recently, both of my workplaces asked me for my preferred gender pronouns. But, I can remember just a few years ago when I was asked for the first time to publicly announce my pronouns. This is a reflection of how I felt and my own gender journey.

The first meeting that I was asked to use my preferred gender pronouns caught me off guard. I felt afraid and unsure of what to say. I knew what the expected answer was…she/her/hers….and I felt afraid to say anything but the pronouns that would match my outward appearance. I didn’t answer at all. Meeting after meeting, I didn’t answer. I dreaded when it was my turn to share. I would simply say my name and something else (for instance what group I was in or why I was there), avoiding the question or trying to bury the question in other information. Only a few times was I called out. “Oh, you forgot to share your pronouns!” I wanted the question to go away. It seemed like some hokey, liberal trend to be inclusive- but really, it felt like an interrogation into the walled up parts of myself. I have wrestled with gender identity, but came to no conclusions or worse, no plan of action. Thus, I have slid through life avoiding the question and relegating it to some condemned, musty, walled off part of myself that could be attended to when I had the time, courage, or emotional safety. The “gender question” asked at activist meetings forced it out of the dark corner that I had been avoiding. I resented that. No one shines a light in my haunted house!

Mn State Fair Haunted House

For some context, I have felt alienated by my femaleness. It started sometime around the 5th grade. I didn’t want to grow up to be female…or the “w” word. I didn’t want breasts or a period. I didn’t want curves or for people to see me as a woman. I didn’t want to become…such an alien thing. It is a feeling that has hung around. I could provide more details or examples, as often creating a narrative of lifelong questioning is necessary for legitimacy. But, I don’t care to and legitimacy does not have to be rooted in history and long stories. In any event, despite feeling un-female, I wondered what alternative existed for me. What else could I be and how could I become it? Despite these feelings, I have generally presented myself in a feminine way (to some degree), with makeup, shaved body, and long hair. Thus, to question or feel disgusted by and alien from my body and biological/social lot seemed disingenuous. Worse, when I have talked to some people close to me over the years, the reactions have been that I must be mentally ill or just trying to be trendy….because gender dysphoria is cool. This left me feeling a bit lost and defeated. By my 30s I tried not to think too deeply about it. That is…until that pesky question kept coming up!

I started to test out answers. Mostly, when it came up, I said I go by she/her/hers and they/them/theirs. No one cared. The question moved on to the next person. This was nice and gave me more confidence. No one stopped the whole thing and said, “Wait! You are NOT they, them, theirs…. you are just trying to be trendy here! Call the gender police.” Or, “They, them, theirs is for MORE androgynous looking people. Clearly you wear makeup and have long hair. You are not constructing gender properly.” In the few instances where I felt that I needed to give an explanation, I said that I was gender questioning. By cautiously answering…but being met with zero reaction or questioning, I began to feel more comfortable. These questions felt invasive and loaded at first, but it turned out it was not an inquisition.

What am I? I feel weird calling myself a woman. It just seemed so…not me. It seems like a special title reserved for some other people. I didn’t ask for this body. There are parts of it I would be happy to be rid of. At the same time, I think she/her/hers is appropriate for me. Despite how I might feel about myself, the world sees me as female. I am treated like a woman. Each time I fear for my safety or am treated as “less than” a man, I am living a female experience in a female body (I don’t mean this to reify biological gender, but as a shared experience of oppression). I feel safer in female spaces than in spaces dominated by men and I feel like I do not behave or present in a fashion that is gender queer enough for trans or non-binary spaces. I present myself in a “feminine” way. I have been subjected to and subjugated by female gender norms. I fear aging. I fear becoming too ugly or too fat. My presentation of self is still very much governed by patriarchal gender norms for women. At the same time, gender is socially constructed. There is no feminine. Long hair and makeup can be masculine, androgynous, feminine, or really anything or nothing at all. Despite the arbitrary nature of these rules, my presentation has social meaning that is associated with femaleness. I could reject this, but there is no real way to reject this as reconstructing gender usually hinges upon gender tropes. Binary gender is such a part of our cognitive landscape that it is hard to escape. Inevitably, it depends upon rejecting what is viewed as masculine, feminine, mixing up these characteristics, or inventing something androgynous (which is often stereotyped as thin and skewed towards masculine). She/her/hers is also useful in showing solidarity with women. I am a feminist. Maybe I don’t always feel like a woman, but I live in this world perceived and treated as one. I experience oppression as a woman and she/her/hers can be useful gender shorthand for these experiences and my solidarity with those who also experience this.

Although I am she/her/hers….I am also not these things. It feels like gender is Schroedinger’s cat, which both IS and ISN’T. Both things exist in the box that is myself. I am female in body and experience, but also not these things, both because there is no female body and universal female experience and because I feel alien from the female parts of me (whatever those may be). This is hard to explain. To address the first aspect of my non-femaleness, well, femaleness does not really exist. What is female? Breasts, certain hormones, certain chromosomes, vaginas, or other biological characteristics? Some females have some of these characteristics and not others, have all of these to varying degrees, or have some of these in some parts of life and not in others. I have some biological markers of being female, but I do not necessarily want them, and being female is more than just biological rules and boundaries (which are themselves socially determined). I would be happy to not have breasts, for instance. I have always hated them. I am actually really happy that mine are small, since I really don’t want these female associated appendages hanging off my body. They serve no purpose in my life. I have no intention of breast feeding, which seems like a body horror, nor enjoy their utility in sexual attraction. Yes, I called it a body horror. I feel that chest feeding can be wonderful and nourishing for OTHERS who are not alienated by their bodies, but to me existing in this body, the very thought of it seems like a torturous humiliation. In this sense, and others that I won’t share, I am very much not a woman.

Femaleness is also related to gender roles, expected behaviors, and social position. Where do I fit in to that? Sure, I think that I am “feminine”, but I think that this is one facet of who I am and more or less just a part of the full constellation of human traits that everyone shares to varying degrees. I am not “feminine” in some ways, in that I don’t necessarily follow female gender roles. I am not particularly nurturing, not at all motherly or maternal, am emotionally reserved, not much for traditional roles of care giving and cleaning, independent and self-reliant, not romantic, generally more rational and scientific than spiritual or emotional, etc. Once again, these are characteristics that get divied up between masculine and feminine, but are not inherently either. Still, I think that bodily, emotionally, and socially, I have traits that I feel are masculine, feminine, and androgynous. I don’t feel a close affinity with my femaleness, but I don’t entirely reject it either. Thus, I really like they, them, their as gender pronouns. I also like to go by H. as well as Heather, since I think it represents my non-binary self. Heather is very feminine in our society. I used to hate my name because of it. However, I am trying to accept that Heather is just a plant. It is a flower that grows in rocky, boggy conditions- with no innate femininity, masculinity, or androgyny. The sound of the word Heather is not feminine, as people in other countries have similar sounding names which are pegged as masculine- such as Hadir in Arabic speaking countries. I can be Heather and not necessarily be feminine. But, I do enjoy when friends call me H.

Gender is complicated. I don’t have the answers. I consider myself gender questioning because I haven’t arrived at my final destination. I don’t know that I will. There may be times in my life that I embrace my femaleness more. Other times, it may be a source of pain and humiliation. I haven’t always enjoyed getting asked what my pronouns are, but at the very least, I am starting to feel more confident. At this point, I feel confident enough to say that yes, there is a they, them, their part of myself. It doesn’t matter if I don’t look or behave in a non-binary way or reject gender enough. I don’t need to be legitimate in anyone else’s eyes. It is gender that is illegitimate, not me. Even if my feelings ARE the result of being trendy or mentally ill, why stigmatize either? Traditional concepts of gender (and sex) benefit no one but those at the top of our patriarchal, capitalist economic system. As my life progresses, perhaps I will feel bolder and ask to be H. or they, them, their more often. Perhaps not. For now, this is where I am at. Thanks for asking.

Anxious Adventuring: Nationalist Tour Guide

H. Bradford

10/8/18

While visiting Macedonia I decided to go on a day tour to Lake Ohrid. It would have been far cheaper to take a public bus, but I had some worries that perhaps the bus would be overbooked or that I would miss the bus back to Skopje. To make things less stressful, I booked a day tour to Lake Ohrid. Of course, Macedonia does not have an expansive tourist industry, so most day tours are private tours. Private tours are expensive, but they make it easier to learn about different historical sights than I would have learned on my own. Another downside, besides price, is that it can be socially awkward. After all, it means that the guide is your only company ALL day long. That is a lot of social pressure on both parties. Many things could go wrong. What if the guide is weird? What if the guide makes me feel unsafe? What if we simply don’t get along? I don’t often do private tours because of the price and the social component. But, it seemed easier than making a mistake using the bus system in an unfamiliar country for a several hour bus ride that at least online was said to be often sold out… so I booked a guide.

Beautiful Lake Ohrid…

I waited anxiously at my hostel for the guide to arrive. When he arrived, I felt disappointed that it was a man, since it always feels safer to be alone with women. I wasn’t entirely alone though, since he had a driver with him. It made me feel tense, as these two men were to be my company for the day. Oh well. The guide was nice enough…and handed me some brochures about various Macedonian tourist attractions. He gave me an overview of how the day would go and we set off towards our first stop, the mouth of the Vardar river. Along the way, he shared his knowledge of Macedonia, which he was very passionate and knowledgeable about. Based upon his particular slant on the information he shared, it became clear that he was….very nationalist.

First stop…Vardar River (one of many photos of me that day…)

The guide, who I will call “A.” strongly believed that Macedonia was indeed the homeland of Alexander the Great and that the people of Macedonia, while Slavs, had actually mixed with the ancient Macedonian population. He substantiated this belief with stories of how some villages continue to conduct group weddings. He believed that group weddings were a custom modeled after Alexander the Great’s mass wedding held in Susa wherein marriages were arranged between Alexander and his officers and Persian noblewomen. This was an interesting theory, though there are many reasons to hold collective weddings (for instance, to save time and to share costs). He was a strong advocate for a boycott of the referendum, as he felt that if it passed, Greece would have control over street names, statues, books, school curriculum, stadiums, or even outlaw the use of the name Alexander as a given name. I didn’t quite understand why the referendum would be boycotted rather than simply “vote NO.” Since the failure of the referendum, I now understand that voter turnout needed to be at least 50% for it to be valid. To A., the very idea that the matter would be voted upon was insulting. He felt deeply that not only were Macedonians the inheritors of Alexander the Great’s legacy, Greece had no business telling Macedonia what to do. This was not framed as an anti-Nato or anti-EU sentiment. A. also made no indication that he had a pro-Russian political orientation. His position was, however, a vehemently anti-Greek position. He spoke about the oppression of Slavic people in Greek Macedonia and believed that the majority of this population still spoke Macedonian (it is unknown how many speakers there are, but in 1951 it was 40,000). I nodded along to his assertions, but didn’t know what to say when he went on a tirade about how Alexander the Great was not bisexual or gay and this was a myth propagated by Hollywood. Nationalism, while it has reasonable aspects (yes, Macedonia should have the autonomy to determine its own name and interpretation of history) can also be deeply intolerant, angry, masculine, and homophobic… at least that is the brand of nationalism that I experienced with A.

For my part, I mostly played dumb and asked questions, since that is often the safest way to act out the role of a non-threatening female around angry men. In any event, I did not want to risk upsetting the person responsible for my safety and transportation. The day had many awkward moments, as A. had a very pushy personality. For instance, he insisted that he needed to take my photo at every stop we made. At churches, rivers, lakes, statues, etc. I politely told him many times that I was content to have just a few photos of myself, but he pushed to take my photo at every stop, harassing me with compliments about how I looked. This was uncomfortable, but I lacked any power in the situation to escape this barrage of photos. I did my best to make polite excuses not to take more photos of myself (usually I have the opposite problem that as a solo traveler I have to ask a stranger for a photo or use the self-timer on my camera). This was to no avail and a familiar experience. Consent and boundaries are only dimly understood among most people and part of living and traveling in this world is experiencing situations where these are violated, ignored, or pushed. Likewise, A. was very devoutly Orthodox. When we visited two monasteries, he insisted that I drink the water. I didn’t want to drink the water, since I didn’t trust that it was not going to make me sick (untreated water contains unfamiliar bacteria that he might be used to, but I could get sick from). He pushed me to drink the water, which he asserted was the purest water in the world. I took a small sip to appease him and later found myself pretending to drink the water by cupping it in my hand, putting it to my mouth, but letting it slip through my fingers. When asked about my religious beliefs, I felt it was best to lie- as he was extremely devout in his Orthodoxy. I told him I was Protestant. I don’t think I have ever lied about my atheism. At one point, he told me to light the candles at the monastery. I am not Orthodox, so I felt uncomfortable, but he was so adamant about it, I lit the candle. Then, he quizzed me about what it meant. I had no idea. He said that the candles are lit because of the sins in the world. I said something awkward about darkness and suffering, then moved on to ponder the miraculous dripping bone marrow of John the Baptist.

Things became less socially intense when we arrived at Lake Ohrid. I opted to spent some time alone there and enjoyed blissful social isolation as I strolled around the lake looking for birds and taking in the scenery. At Lake Ohrid, the guide and I parted ways. I appreciate that he was very candid about his political beliefs and I felt that it had been a unique opportunity to speak with someone with strong nationalist views. On the other hand, I was relieved to no longer feel pressured for photographs or to sample water or any other thing that had made me feel uncomfortable during the day. I survived! The ride back to Skopje was less stressful. I had an enjoyable conversation with the more politically moderate driver who was pro-EU and pro-NATO. He was pessimistic about Macedonia’s future and largely indifferent to Greek’s demands, since Macedonia was too weak to resist it and Alexander the Great was not worth celebrating anyway. The driver felt that Macedonia was a unimportant, doomed nation (so he lacked A.’s zealous confidence in Macedonia’s purpose and history). It was interesting to hear this perspective, even if it came across as a dreary pro-Western defeatism. Despite the polar opposite views on Macedonia’s history, both men agreed upon the horrible prospect of “Greater Albania.” When I spoke to a very progressive guide the following day, she also feared Greater Albania. So, oddly, that was the tie that bound the political spectrum- fear of Albanian territorial, economic, and population expansion. I am not sure what to make of that…

My guides often pointed out whenever they saw an Albanian flag…

I think it is both rude and privileged to put down my guide, as he was extremely hard working and passionate about his job. In a group setting, I probably would have felt far less uncomfortable and anxious. He was uncomfortably pushy in some regards and it was emotionally exhausting to try to balance politeness (for safety and a smooth day) and resistance (not wanting to drink unknown water, for instance). I have had experiences like this before while traveling and living, which I have navigated differently depending upon my own perceived power in the situation (which is often little). In any event, as trying as the day felt at some points, it was an opportunity to see and hear nationalism first hand. Despite my support of Macedonian self-determination, on a personal level, nationalism feels smothering, assertive, and intolerant.

I am fairly certain that this AP photo by Thanassis Stavrakis of a Macedonian nationalist is a picture of my tour guide….

What’s in a Name? Macedonia’s Referendum

H. Bradford

10/7/18

I traveled to Macedonia this past September as a part of a three week trip that took me to several countries. The trip occurred just ahead of Macedonia’s September 30th referendum to change the country’s name from Republic of Macedonia (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) to North Macedonia (among other things). It was an interesting time to visit the country, since there were activists campaigning for a boycott of the referendum. Some of them handed out fliers and others appeared to maintain an encampment near Park Warrior Woman. On the surface, the referendum seems simple enough, as it asked whether or not Macedonians were in favor of NATO and EU membership by accepting an agreement with Greece. The Prespa Agreement with Greece entails a name change, but also means that the constitution would have to acknowledge that Macedonians are not related to ancient Macedonians and there would have to be Greek review of maps and textbooks to make certain that that Macedonia did not claim Hellenistic heritage or Greek territory. While I didn’t have the opportunity to speak to many Macedonians on the issue, I did speak to three of them, each of whom had different opinions on the vote. I also read several books on Macedonian history before the trip, which at least provided some context to the debate. My opinion is informed by these experiences.

Macedonia was one of the six republics of Yugoslavia and among them it was the poorest, with an economy centered upon agriculture. Within Yugoslavia, Macedonian national identity was promoted through the development of film, theater, music, art, language, etc. Nationalism was cultivated in such a way as not to promote independence from Yugoslavia or overt territorial ambitions against Greece or Bulgaria in the interest of uniting Macedonians. The collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991 presented an economic and identity crisis. In forging a new identity, Macedonia certainly has unique history and language to draw from, as the country is full of ancient Christian churches and monasteries and Macedonian language influenced St. Cyril’s Glagolitic script, the first Slavic alphabet. Language and orthodoxy are two components of Macedonian national identity, and the Macedonian Orthodox church declared itself autocephalus in 1967. However, its autonomy is not recognized by the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy. While these are important parts of Macedonian nationalism, it seems that a great deal of Macedonian nationalism today draws from the ancient history of Alexander the Great, which Greece takes issue with. And…Macedonia draws from this history to the extreme. A visit to Skopje feels like a tour of an Alexander the Great theme park, with enormous statues of Alexander the Great, Phillip II, Alex’s mother Olympia, and Greek style buildings.

Most scholars find little continuity between the Macedonia of Alexander the Great and modern Republic of Macedonia. Alexander the Great was believed to have been born in Pella, in modern Greek Macedonia in 356 BC. Of course, the division between Greek Macedonia and Republic of Macedonia is a construct of the Ottoman empire, nationalist struggles that aided the empire’s collapse, and borders drawn from the Balkan wars of the early 1900s. In any event, the Macedonia of Alexander the Great or Phillip II appears to mostly cover Greek Macedonia, with parts of modern day Republic of Macedonia, Albania, and Bulgaria. I have seen maps that extend this border further north as far as half way up Republic of Macedonia, but this doesn’t really matter as “Macedonia” as a place has encompassed different areas in different times. The Macedonians today are Slavic people, who settled in the region in the 6th century, nearly 600 years after the death of Alexander the Great. Therefore, Greeks argue that Republic of Macedonia has appropriated their history. On the other hand, Alex, a Macedonian I spoke to, believed that Slavic people mixed with the Macedonian population, preserving some of their customs and history. Macedonia would have experienced invasion from Huns, Visgoths, Vandals, as well as Roman rule prior to Slavs entering the scene. History is contentious and while Republic of Macedonia is unlikely to be the geographic and cultural inheritor of Alexander the Great’s legacy, all nations are build upon myths and borrowings.

All nations are human constructions. After all, the Earth, as seen from space, does not have neat little lines delineating borders or handy name tags for rivers, countries, mountains, etc. These are things that we have named and given meaning to. In the case of nation states, this is a fairly recent phenomenon of unifying peoples, cultures, languages, and geographical spaces into recognized political units. This didn’t happen neatly, accidentally, or uniformly. Africa consists of nations carved out and patched together by European colonizers. The United States, as a nation, was built by genocide, warfare, slavery, colonization, civil war, imperialism, and also by accompanying and supporting mythologies of manifest destiny, exceptionalism, moral justification, pluralism, and democracy. And, like much of the West, part of our national mythology draws from Ancient Greece. We appropriate Greek architecture, as many of our government buildings and statues have Greek themes and columns. Lighthouses, juries, theater, democracy, our alphabet, the Olympics, math, science, philosophy, art, libraries, etc. are parts of ancient Greek culture that have been widely appropriated by the West. We created movies and television shows based upon Greek mythology which are often inaccurate or re-imagined for mass audiences. Yet, Greece does not take issue with all of these borrowings from their history, even when many are likewise not accurate reconstructions of myths, ideas about democracy, architectural styles, etc. Why Macedonia? Why Alexander the Great?

A very Greek looking Museum of Archaeology in Skopje…

From a practical standpoint, borrowing from Ancient Greece is so commonplace that much of it probably happens without thought or notice. On the other hand, Greece does not have the means to threaten the United States or most of Europe even if they were to misappropriate ancient Greek history. For example, there is a replica of the Parthenon in Nashville, Tennessee, which, of course, is even more outrageously ahistorical than any Macedonian claim to Alexander the Great. Suppose Greece took issue with this. The United States has the largest GDP in the world, whereas Greece is around 50th. While Greece spends over 2.3% of its GDP on military (for which it was praised by Trump), this spending (about 9.3 billion dollars) is dwarfed by the $590 billion spent by the United States on defense each year. Greece has little economic, political, or military power to challenge most other members of NATO or the EU for any misuse of Greek culture or history. At the same time, Greece is in a much more powerful position than Macedonia. Although Macedonia’s government has vowed to increase military spending as it seeks NATO membership, as of 2017 military spending was less than 1% of the GDP at just under 110 million dollars. In terms of 2015 GDP, Macedonia was the sixth poorest country in Europe, after Moldova, Ukraine, Kosovo, Albania, and Bosnia Herzegovina and a 27% unemployment rate. Greece’s unemployment rate was also around 25% in 2015 and the population has suffered austerity measures and shaky EU membership in the face of a debt crisis that was spurred by the larger global financial crisis of 2008. Nevertheless, Greece has more political and economic power than Macedonia for a number of reasons including its long established NATO membership (since 1951), EU membership (a part of predecessor organization the European Community since 1981), longer history as an independent country (Macedonia became an independent country in 1991 compared to Greece’s independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1829), larger population and area (population of 10 million versus 2 million in Macedonia), larger and better equipped military, etc. In short, Greece is much more powerful than Macedonia and therefore far more able to enforce its claims to culture, history, and national identity.

Phillip II statue in Skopje…with scenes of Alexander the Great’s life

Since Macedonia’s 1991 independence, Greece has exerted its relative power to thwart Macedonia’s existence as….Macedonia. In the 1990s, Greece imposed an economic embargo against Macedonia and blocked its UN membership. In 2008, Greece vetoed Macedonia’s NATO membership and in 2009, its bid for EU membership. In 1993, Macedonia agreed to the official name of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in exchange for UN membership and in 1995, agreed to change the flag by removing the Vergina Sun used as the royal symbol of ancient Macedonia (Gjukovikj, 2018). This past summer, Greek and Macedonian governments sought to come to an agreement which would pave the way for Macedonia’s NATO membership. This agreement entailed a name change to North Macedonia, renouncing any claim to ancient Macedonia history and Greek territory, removal of all public uses of the Vergina sun, recognition of Greece’s territorial integrity (i.e. no territorial claims to Greek Macedonia), committee oversight of textbooks and historical materials, and various articles more generally related to trade, defense, crime, treaty enforcement, etc. The Prespa agreement can be read here: https://www.thenationalherald.com/204203/the-full-text-of-greece-fyrom-agreement-pdf/

I have a soft spot for Macedonia, as it very much seems like the underdog in this situation. It is impossible to imagine an outside country setting the terms of how the United States can interpret its history or what symbols we can use on our flag or in our public spaces. It seems absurd that Macedonia cannot be Macedonia….as if national identity is some sacred truth! Certainly cultural appropriation is not a small matter, but generally the injustice stems from the powerful appropriating the history and culture of the oppressed. In this case, Macedonia is the smaller power with less leverage to define itself or maintain an autonomous existence. While Macedonians certainly appropriate Hellenistic culture to nationalist ends, Greece historically has extinguished and denied Slavic culture in Greek Macedonia. After Macedonia was divided by Greece, Serbia, and Bulgaria in 1913, Greece replaced Slavic geographical and family names in Greek Macedonia with Greek ones and designated the Macedonian population “Bulgarians.” In 1936, Macedonian language was outlawed in Greece and many Macedonians, who often were also leftists, either fled the country or faced political repression. In 1951, 40,000 people in Northern Greece still considered themselves Slavophiles despite the decades of repression. No census of Slavic speakers has been conducted since (Karadis, 1994). As recent as 1994, Human Rights Watch called upon Greece to stop harassment of Slavic speakers and in 1998, the European Court of Human Rights called upon Greece to allow its people free association by granting permission for the formation of Slavic cultural associations (Karatsareas, n.d.). Greece many not formally recognize what remains of its aging Slavic speaking population, but the assertion of territorial integrity in the Prespa agreement at some level admits that the 1913 borders (which included Greek Macedonia) is contentious. Why? Macedonia lacks the military, political, or economic means to challenge Greece’s borders and the Slavic population of Greece Macedonia has been Hellenized to the degree that there is little threat of an independence/unification movement. It seems that rather than a real Macedonian threat to Greece’s national integrity, this aspect of the agreement is meant to establish that Greece has “won” at history or any debate to the nature of Greece Macedonia’s geographic or cultural makeup is over.

Unfortunately, Macedonia’s right to be Macedonia (i.e. its right to self-determination), is not supported in the West. While I was visiting Macedonia, Angela Merkel came to Skopje in support of voting yes in the referendum. NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg and Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz also visited Skopje that week. The U.S state department, former president George W. Bush, U.S. secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and President Trump each encouraged Macedonians to vote yes. In fact, $8 million was approved by congress to fund a yes vote (Tisdale, 2018). I imagine that to most people, Macedonia’s path to EU and NATO membership is viewed positively, as becoming closer to the West is blithely viewed as a way to become more prosperous, progressive, globally integrated, or any number of positive things. But, at what cost? In this case, the immediate cost is self-determination on even the most basic issue of maintaining the autonomy to choose by what name the country calls itself! Increased military spending is another expected cost. Of course, this is also part of a larger issue, since the referendum in Macedonia has been framed by Western media as primarily a naming issue! No big deal, right? What is the difference between Macedonia and North Macedonia? But, this ignores the other aspects of the Prespa Agreement, including the auditing of text books and maps. This framing also ignores the assumption that joining the EU and NATO are positive things. It is really positive and progressive to join the West by increasing military spending or fighting in NATO’s conflicts? In any event, while the Yes vote won, voter turnout was too low to validate the results (only 36% voter turnout). For now, the matter remains at an impasse as the referendum failed.

Macedonia is still a fairly new nation with tremendous challenges ahead. Navigating these challenges are nearly impossible. Integration with the West almost certainly means compromising aspects of national identity in favor of an identity which is less threatening to Greece. As a matter of self-determination, I believe that Macedonians should have the right to interpret their history as they please, even if it does not align with other histories. The world is full of cities founded and named after Alexander the Great, which Greece does not take particular interest in. There are statues of Alexander the Great in Scotland, Argentina, Germany, France, and Egypt to name a few places. The Albanian military commander “Skanderbeg” was nicknamed after Alexander the Great. I think that it is entirely possible for both countries to coexist while allowing for Macedonia to draw inspiration from this history. At the same time, a Macedonian driver that I met made the excellent point that maybe Alexander the Great is not the best symbol for the nation, considering that his image and history celebrate warfare and conquest. I would add that Macedonia is made up of many people, including Albanians, Roma, Turks, Vlachs, Serbians, Torbesh, and others. Alexander the Great may not represent all of these people. I think that is a matter for the people of Macedonia to decide and question. No one in Macedonia benefits from costly statues and buildings when the population suffers from poverty and unemployment. For instance, the “Warrior on Horse” statue (which is meant to depict Alexander the Great) cost over $13 million. The structures built in Skopje between 2010-2014 cost over $700 million. As a tourist, it is certainly bizarre and fascinating to stroll around the endless monuments, but these have a human cost in terms of money that could have been spent on social programs and labor power that went into their construction. Therefore, the right to Alexander the Great should not be idealized, but should be allowed as a matter of national autonomy. Likewise, nationalism can be ugly and is often misused to cow a populace into submission and can foster social division. But, the experience of realizing national autonomy can be unify and mobilize a people towards progressive interests. In the end, that is why I support allowing Macedonia to be Macedonia.

Illegal Abortion: Lessons from Romania

by H. Bradford

7/10/18

I recently read Gail Kligman’s The Politics of Duplicity. In the past, I had read parts of the book, drawing from it for my thesis on the topic of abortion in formerly communist countries. In preparation for my upcoming short vacation to Romania, I wanted to read some books about Romanian topics, so I reconnected with the book for that purpose. Reflecting upon the book, there are some lessons that can be drawn from Romania’s abortion experience. Abortion access has been relentlessly attacked and restricted since its legalization in 1973 and Trump’s Supreme Court nominee will certainly be hostile to Roe v. Wade. While the spectre of inaccessible, if not illegal, abortion has haunted America for decades, there is fearful anticipation among activists that a new era of attacks on reproductive rights is upon us. Therefore, Kligman’s book is timely for anyone looking to learn from the historical horrors of illegal abortion.

To provide some context, in 1966 abortion was made illegal in Romania by the communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu. Decree 770 made abortion illegal in most cases, spare some medical conditions, age thresholds (40 or 45 depending upon the age), rape, incest, fetal deformity, or having already raised a certain number of children (4-5 depending on the year). Abortion remained illegal until the collapse of Ceausescu’s dictatorship in 1989. During this time period, contraceptives were unavailable in Romania, women were subjected to regular mandatory gynecological exams to monitor pregnancies/abortions/reproductive health, abortion seekers and providers were imprisoned, childless people were fined, homosexuality and adultery was criminalized, and divorce was made difficult to obtain. The state mobilized propaganda, medical institutions, and the criminal justice system towards enforced reproduction in the interest of demographic goals. According to Kligman’s book, this reproductive dystopia was the inspiration of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. Although the United States is very different from communist Romania in the 1960s-80s, some important lessons can be drawn from these nightmarish decades.

1.Abortion Does Not End With Illegality:

Despite Romanian’s draconian laws and lack of access to birth control, abortion did not end. Women either found legal channels, such as obtaining an abortion for medical purposes (as some conditions allowed for abortion) or faking a miscarriage or illegal channels, such as willing doctors or underground providers. Most often it was through illegal channels. The option of travel was not available to most Romanian women, but for a privileged minority this was also a means to obtain an abortion. One way or another, women continued to seek abortions. Of course, the ability to seek an abortion was largely dependent upon privilege. Women who knew doctors, had more social networks, had favorable connections to the police or state, more money, or other resources could more easily circumvent the laws. Thus, the burden of illegal abortion hits the most marginalized populations the hardest. It is the poorest and most estranged from social institutions who were forced to reproduce. For example, Kligman (1998) relayed the story of a peasant woman who was awarded a Medal of Maternal Glory for having 10 children. She used the award ceremony as a platform to beg for an extra bed. While she was celebrated for her large number of children, it may very well been for lack of access to an alternative and certainly, this state celebrated choice was not supported by accompanying material resources.

Within the United States, if abortion was made illegal, abortion seekers would continue to have access to it. Women with careers, credit cards, no criminal histories, U.S. passports, and paid vacation time could access abortion in other countries if it was made illegal here. Generally, those with resources such as money and vehicles could travel to states where abortion laws were less restrictive. Those with social networks or living in urban areas, might have access to underground illegal abortion services. Thus, once again, abortion would not disappear, though the limited access would have the greatest impact on poor women, women of color, rural women, women with criminal histories, immigrant women, and those whose access is already severely limited by lack of abortion access and funding. The Anti-abortion movement is inherently a war against the most oppressed members of society. While illegal abortion would certainly be a challenge to educated, “middle class”, mobile, white women, the impact would be deeper felt by those who face multiple oppressions.

Unsafe Abortion:

The illegality of abortion in Romania drove women to seek abortions. Some abortions were performed by doctors looking to supplement their modest incomes and some were performed by those who genuinely wanted to help women. These abortions were made unsafe by the secretive conditions that illegal abortion created. Doctors had to hide their tools, work quickly, and perform abortions in private residences. Others were self-induced or performed by non-professionals. About half of these illegal abortions were performed without harm to the woman. As for the rest, women often found themselves suffering complications from the herbs, plants, toxins, or objects used to perform the abortion. This created the hard choice between seeking medical help and risking criminal charges or the possibility of death. Around 60% of women who went to the hospital for pregnancy complications had sought illegal abortion. In all, there was an average of 341 deaths per year from abortion complications while abortion was illegal in Romania. Illegal abortion is the death sentence for some women.

Maternal death can also be expected if abortion were to be made illegal in the United States. There are some key improvements in the United States compared to Romania. For one, abortion medicine is more advanced. In Romania, abortions were only performed by curettage, as vacuum aspiration was unavailable before 1989. Mifepristone had not yet been invented, so medical abortion was also unavailable (misoprostol the other drug used to induce abortion had been invented but would not have been available in Romania). The lack of abortion technology made abortion less safe in Romania than if abortion became illegal in the United States. Nevertheless, if abortion were illegal in the United States, abortion seekers and providers would still face tough choices if complications arose. Because doctors in the United States are better paid than those in Romania and their education comes at a steep cost, fewer might be incentivized by earning extra money than those in communist Romania were. This may put women in the hands of those who have less access to abortion medicine/knowledge. Illegality means less regulation, oversight, uniformity, accreditation, sanitary conditions, and more dangers. This isn’t to argue that only medical professionals are capable of providing safe abortion. There were certainly Romanian women who obtained safe abortions from non-medical providers whose folk knowledge of plants and good fortune were enough to end a pregnancy. However, illegal abortion creates more unknown variables that can contribute to a lack of safety.

Criminality:

In Romania, both women and doctors were imprisoned for seeking/performing abortions. Time in prison was generally one to three years. However, some repeat offenders found themselves in prison for longer. Even those who facilitated abortion were imprisoned, such as the girlfriend of a doctor who was imprisoned for one year without a change of clothes. She was believed to have hosted the abortion in her apartment. Doctors who performed illegal abortions could lose their medical license, or at the very least, had to work in another area of medicine.

If the anti-abortion movement in the United States believes that abortion is murder, then it follows that abortion must carry with it some sort of penalty. In the U.S. the penalty for murder is often life imprisonment and sometimes capital punishment. Those who argue that abortion is murder rarely argue for the same punishment as murder, which is odd, as it indicates to me that they do not believe it is actually murder or that if it is murder, it is a different kind of murder. Why is it different? And, if it is different, it concedes that a fetus is not the same as a born human, for which the punishment is the harshest among all crimes. But, supposing that abortion is made illegal but the punishment is more minor, such as a few years in prison. The United States has the largest prison population in the world. 22% of all of the prisoners in the world are in the United States. Illegal abortion could potentially add many people to our prison system, as one in three women have had an abortion. What would society be like if one in three women were imprisoned? The United States has 30% of the world’s female prison population. African Americans make up 40% of the United States prison population, despite the fact that they are 13% of the general population. Criminalizing abortion, like criminalizing anything in this country, disproportionately impacts people of color.

Unwanted Children:

One outcome of illegal abortion in Romania was unwanted children. After all, not all women could successfully access illegal abortion. Many of these children found themselves on the streets or were put into overcrowded, underfunded orphanages. Because of unsanitary medical practices and lack of transparency/policy regarding HIV, some of these orphans contracted HIV. After the collapse of communism in Romania, the Western Media broadcasted the images of underweight, despondent, dirty, neglected children in Romanian orphanages, revealing and perhaps making a spectacle of the horror of their abuse. Romanian society failed to care for the children that women were forced to birth. I doubt the United States would do much better.

Romanian society had some advantages over the United States when it comes to the care of children. In Romania, retirement age was 57 for women (and 55 upon request). For men, it was 62 or 60 upon request. Therefore, unwanted children or children that parents simply could not care for, could be sent to retired grandparents or other relatives. In the United States, full Social Security benefits begin at 66, but many people feel that they can no longer retire. The pool of retirees who can provide care work for children is smaller as the economy and lack of pension benefits at jobs forces U.S. workers into the job market longer. Romania also offered 112 days of paid maternity leave, a birth bonus, and a 10% stipend for their second child (more for additional children). While these government funds were not sufficient to defray the actual cost of raising a child, at least the government made some effort to provide for families. The United States does not offer free daycare, paid maternity leave, or any additional funds to support families. In this sense, our country is profoundly unequipped to support mothers and children. There are programs for needy families, such as MFIP and food stamps, but only the poorest can access these and this does not resolve problems such as affordable daycare and paid leave, which all working parents need.

Ideology of Gender Oppression:

In the United States, it seems that one of the biggest incubators of the ideology of gender oppression is religion. After all, most anti-abortion groups are religiously affiliated. Because religion has been used to justify homophobia, lack of abortion access, and the oppression of women, it is easy to view religion as the source of gender oppression. However, one lesson from Romania is that religion can be completely absent from public life and the state can still propagate ideologies that justify the oppression of women. Romania, like all communist countries, was an atheist state. Nevertheless, the state created mythologies about nationalism and building communism, in which the role of women was both that of a worker and glorified mother. While the case for illegal abortion is often made on religious grounds in the United States, nationalism, economic prosperity, and even science can be mobilized to oppress women. In Romania, propaganda created a mythology that women were naturally meant to be mothers. That this was what made them the healthiest, happiest, and most productive. Any ideology that states that women are naturally “X” should be a red flag. Women are not naturally anything. Woman is a social category which has divided the world in an unequal gender binary. So, while I write now about women and often discuss women’s rights to abortion, it is important to remember that men and non-binary people also seek abortions. Not all people with uteruses are women. Part of the fight for reproductive rights is the fight to challenge notions of gender or what is natural, since “natural” is a dog whistle for what is expected and enforced. The fight for reproductive rights is not a fight against religion, though some religions are involved in the anti-abortion movement. In a discursive sense, it is also a fight about the very notion of what it means to be a woman. It is a fight against the demographic and economic interests of states, which are invested in the reproduction of workers and soldiers if not the actual upkeep of children.

Culture of Suspicion:

Kligman (1998) noted that Romanian abortion laws created a culture of suspicion. Women were made to have regular gynecological exams. Doctors were mobilized by the state to police the bodies of women. Everyday citizens were recruited by The Securitate to spy on one another. Relationships between couples, neighbors, co-workers, doctors, etc. deteriorated as it was never certain who could be trusted and who could not.

The United States is not the same sort of police state, but because of our political and cultural environment, abortion is still a matter of secrecy and shame. Few people discuss their abortion experience even though abortion is common. If abortion were illegal, this secrecy and shame is likely to increase because of the legal consequence. Therefore, it is important for supporters of abortion to fight the shame. In the arena of discourse, we should never accept that abortion should be rare, that it is shameful, regrettable, or that no one is pro-abortion. I am pro-abortion. If abortion is medicine, then I am as much for abortion as I am for dental treatment, eye exams, cancer treatment, or any other form of medicine. Abortion can be life saving. Abortion is sometimes freedom from poverty or abusive relationships. Like anything, it can be a positive, negative, or neutral experience based upon social and personal circumstances.

Abortion and Abuse

Kligman (1998) did not give as much attention to this topic as it deserves, perhaps because of lack of research in this area. However, she mentioned that in Romania, divorce was hard to obtain and abuse was considered a personal/family matter. Even if a woman sought to escape an abusive situation, survival on a single income and the ability to obtain housing would have been nil. She also wrote that men really did not take responsibility for pregnancy prevention and that it was up to women to obtain an abortion or deal with the consequences of pregnancy. State health propaganda suggested that couples should have sex several times a week. The state fostered a society wherein domestic violence was inescapable by virtue of social norms, lack of resources, enforced pregnancy, and state sanctioned male entitlement to sex.

If abortion were illegal in the United States, victims of domestic violence would similarly find themselves forced to have the children of their abuser. Due to the efforts of the feminist movement, domestic violence is not inevitably viewed as a personal or family matter but a problem related to patriarchy and the exertion of power. Advocates have pushed back against this narrative. Shelters, community responses involving education police and social services, and laws that protect victims from such things as eviction or job loss are some of the victories of the feminist movement which Romanian society did not have. However, illegal abortion would still have an impact on victims/survivors as it would force them to have the children of their abuser and through this connection continue to have to deal with them in courts (for child support, custody, visitation) and in life (if the abuser does have partial custody, visitation). Enforced pregnancy (through rape or sabotage or denial of birth control) is one of many ways that abusers exert control over victims. Illegal abortion is essentially the state’s sanction of sexual abuse.

U.S. Foreign Policy- Exporting Anti-Abortion

One final lesson from Romania is that Western countries were either indifferent or supportive of Ceausescu’s abortion policies. Nixon visited Romania in the early 1970s, Jimmy Carter hosted a visit of Ceausescu in 1978, and the United States looked at Romania as a potential ally due to its independence from the Soviet Union, relations with Israel, and willingness to engage in trade agreements with the west. The suffering of the Romanian people and the restrictive abortion laws mattered very little to the two ruling parties of the United States. This is because ultimately, U.S. economic and political interests as an imperialist power supersede principled concerns about the rights of women. Lip service may be given to these concerns from time to time, but these concerns meet their horizon where US hegemony is challenged.

Our country’s hostility towards abortion has a global impact. One example is the Global Gag rule, which began with Reagan and has been squarely supported by Republicans since. Basically, it means that oversees organizations which receive U.S. aid cannot provide or promote abortion services. I expect that if abortion became illegal in the United States, we would empower and expand restrictions elsewhere. In terms of abortion, the worst offenders, of course, are Republicans, but at the heart of the issue is a shared, underlying view that the United States is exceptional, correct, important, and deserves a disproportionate place in shaping the history of the world and lives of the people of other countries. The United States is not exceptional, or it is only exceptional in its atrocities, war mongering, genocide, racism, mass incarceration, and capacity for immiserating the world. I believe that if abortion became illegal in the United States, the people of the world would help the oppressed women here. In return, it is our duty to demolish U.S. power abroad.

Conclusion:

Illegal abortion seems like a nightmare, but in this nightmarish lens, it is always an Other. It is an exotic, Eastern, communist dystopia that is distant from the United States on account of time, place, and political/economic system. But, the challenges faced by Romanians are some of the same faced in the United States before abortion was illegal and which are faced today where abortion has not yet been legalized. In Romania, the people rose up and killed their dictators. In the United States, social movements also tirelessly worked to legalize abortion and contraceptives. While women might not have the power to “shut things down” when it comes to reproduction (to quote Todd Akin famous rape statement) there is always the power to shut society down through protest, strikes, and civil disobedience. As challenging as it is, it is our best and only hope in rolling back the tide of attacks against reproductive rights.

Ten Reasons Why Travel Won’t Make You Better

H. Bradford

6/18/18

With the death of Anthony Bourdain, there have been many well meaning articles which encourage people to travel so that they can become better people. This is a common theme in travel writing- the transformative power of travel. However, I am uncomfortable with this framing- especially the claim that travel makes you better. Sometimes this claim is qualified by saying that it will make a person more adventurous, more comfortable with strangers, smarter, more flexible, more self aware, etc. I think this is a dangerous narrative, and that believing that travel makes a person better can actually make a person worse. At the very least, it is a hollow, self-congratulatory platitude for those who have had the privilege of traveling. So, to buck the trend of “travel makes you better” here is a top ten list of how travel doesn’t make you better.

1.Better is Comparative

What is better? Better is a comparative adjective. Thus, to argue that travel makes someone “better” means that there is an unnamed subject that the traveler is better than. Perhaps travel makes a person better than the person they were before they traveled. The comparison is between the past and present self. More darkly, the comparison could be between the traveler and those who have not traveled. This is problematic because travel is a privilege, which will be addressed later. While it may seem benign to suppose that travel makes an individual better than they were before they traveled, this argument concedes that the worth of a human being has something to do with how much they have traveled. Am I a better person because I have traveled? No, the quality of my humanity is no better. I may be more knowledgeable about certain subjects, have some fond memories, or feel proud of confronting my fears but my overall “betterness” is non-existent. I am no better than the human I was before I traveled and no better than any human who has not traveled. Really, this vague notion of “better” is inherently hierarchical, as it divides humans (even as individuals) into better and lesser. The danger of this is that, once again, travel is a privilege that not everyone has access to. It also assumes that travel is intrinsically good.

Bulawayo, Zimbabwe

2. Better is Subjective

Most people who argue that travel makes you better are probably not intending to divide the world between better and lesser people. The sloppy comparison is not meant to be harmful. It is just an example of the taken for granted expressions of common speech. When travel blogs argue that travel makes you “better” it is meant to express that travel improves a set of specific characteristics of an individual traveler. For instance, a travel blog might argue that travel makes a person better at problem solving or better at talking to strangers. Arguably, travel can make someone better at some things. For example, a person who travels frequently may be better at navigating public transportation systems or packing a suitcase (of course, these very specific applications of “better” are not typical of the “travel makes you better arguments” ). It seems reasonable that a person who packs suitcases often may gain skills in fitting objects into a small space and deciding what not to pack as a matter of experience. Compared to someone who does not pack suitcases, this seems true. However, “better” must still be operationalized. How does one measure the quality of betterness at packing suitcases? The volume of objects that are fit inside? The amount of time it takes to pack said objects? If these were deemed the measures of “betterness,” travel is not the only act that creates the improvement of these skills, but rather the act of frequent packing that is associated with travel. A person could develop this skill as a hobby, as a competitive sport (the made up sport of timed packing contests), frequent moving, because of work travel, or maybe even playing Tetris. The big idea is that most uses of the word “better” are subjective. “Better” is not an objective measure (as in the packing example, where it is based upon time and volume) but rather personal opinions, emotions, norms, or less measurable qualities. A person who travels may indeed be “better” at talking to strangers by some objective measures, but this is unlikely to be universally true or true only on account of the travel experience. Finally, the improvement of this skill is only subjectively important.

Travel probably has made me “better” at packing and camping… but only marginally.

3.Better is Fleeting

Years ago, I spent a semester in South Korea, I studied Korean history and language. When I returned to the United States, I maintained my interest in the country for a short time by taking a another Korean history class and reading books. For a time, it could be said that I was “better” at Korean language and “better” at history (as compared to my pre-travel self and the average American who had not studied these things). But with time, this knowledge has faded. While I am still more knowledgeable about topics related to Korea than I would have been had I never studied or traveled there, there are still plenty of things I never learned, will never know, and have long forgotten. The disciplined study of of another language or a country’s history, art, popular culture, music, etc. is a lifelong pursuit that cannot be accomplished simply with a visit, no matter the length. Even becoming an expert in a subject area related to a specific country or area is an ongoing struggle to stay abreast of the latest research. Without ongoing effort to learn more, question what is known, build upon existing knowledge, and make connections to other areas of knowledge…”better” is subject to entropy. Thus, while travel may make someone “better” in the sense they are more knowledgeable, this kind of better declines with time unless effort is made to maintain or improve upon the original set of knowledge.

So many forgotten experiences…so much lost knowledge…

Some travel blogs argue that travel makes someone better, not in the area of knowledge, but in personality traits such as flexibility, problem solving, interpersonal skills, etc. I imagine that these areas are more variable in their decline. A person who learned to problem solve while traveling may have gained a lifelong skill, or, perhaps in other contexts, that same person could become rigid. On the other hand, some of these traits might grow better with time, irrespective of travel. I imagine that the average person who must work and interact with people would over time improve their interpersonal skills simply as a matter of surviving in a society wherein some level of interpersonal skills are required for maintaining a job, maintaining friendships, and navigating social interactions to meet basic needs like food and shelter. In any event, whatever “better” is, ultimately it is illusive, temporary, and contextual.

4. Better Rarely Matters

Suppose travel does make a person better in some ways. I think that my geography skills are probably better than they might be had I never traveled (though my studious roommates who do not internationally travel are much better at geography than I am AND my comrade who has a P.h.d in GIS is infinitely better at geography than I am). So what? Why does it matter? Why does it matter that I might be better than average at geography or alternatively worse than others at it? My worth as a human being is not dependent upon my geography skills. Knowing geography is useful in some contexts (such as teaching geography, current event literacy, or trivia), but the masses of the world do not live or die by my knowledge of geography. The masses of the world live and die in poverty, by preventable disease, by the wars inflicted by my own country, and the legacies of colonization exasperated by the inequalities of global capitalism. My knowledge of geography is important only inasmuch as it can be used to understand and dismantle systems of power. Can travel offer insights that can work towards this end? Of course. It can connect people to others, be a tool of solidarity and collaboration, can mobilize others towards common causes, or be a source of education on injustices. This matters, but only because I value the advancement of social struggle. Travel that makes a person a “better” activist in terms of their effectiveness in advancing struggle certainly has value. Travel that connects and fuels social movements has value. But, almost all of my travel is for pleasure, education, and self-fulfillment. Whatever I gain in the interest of these things, even if I personally become “better”- means little to the rest of the world…which traveling should teach is often entrenched in poverty. What does it matter if I become better at talking to strangers, packing a suitcase, navigating public transportation, or gain the sense I am a more whole person? What does it matter if I become more knowledgeable about a country’s history or culture? What does better matter unless it is a means to an end? The end of self betterment is not globally liberating. The end of fond memories or confronting fear will not ensure a more just world. Becoming a “better” person simply doesn’t matter. We all die. So the goal of becoming a better person for its own sake is a dead end. Becoming a “better” person…in the interest of becoming a more useful and effective member of movements for social change expands the self beyond an individual life or needs. Of course, this is also draining, disappointing, and doesn’t make for great Instagram photos. I am not selfless and tireless enough to only travel in the interest of building social change. So, what does my “better” matter, if not for those things? What does anyone’s “better” matter, if not for those things? And, since travel is not required to become better at the things that truly matter (as much as anything matters in the indifferent universe), does travel matter?

Some of my knowledge from travel is useful when I play trivia with friends

5.Travel is a Privilege:

A major problem with the notion that travel makes you better is that not everyone can travel. 80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. For most of the world, international travel is not an option because it is simply too expensive. This means that travel is mostly a source of “betterment” to people from wealthier countries (i.e. often those with colonial histories which enabled earlier economic development at the expense of exploited colonies). Within wealthier countries where more people may have the leisure time and resources to travel, race, class, gender, sexuality, age, ability, and other sources of social inequality limits who is able to travel and who is not. I have certainly seen many Australians traveling in Europe, but I would be hard pressed to find an aboriginal Australian among them. This isn’t to argue that aboriginal Australians never travel, but since 19% of the population lived in poverty (in 2014), it would be harder for many of them to afford travel. 16% of Americans live in poverty, but 27% of African Americans live in poverty and 26% of Hispanics. Larger segments of racial minority populations simply cannot to travel on account of poverty, not to mention other barriers such as incarceration or safety issues. 12% of Americans have disabilities. While having a disability does not mean that a person cannot travel, depending on the disability, it could create barriers or restrictions to travel. Travel safety is also an issue. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, queer, etc. travelers may be restricted in where they can visit to do fear of repression, hate crimes, incarceration, etc. Travel is far easier if you have money, are cisgender male, straight, white, healthy, young, and child free. Of course, there are plenty of people who are not these things and who travel. Still, 63% of Americans have never been outside the country. It is easy to think that Americans are ignorant, xenophobic bumpkins. In a survey (conducted by a luggage company), 76% of respondents said they wanted to travel but it wasn’t financially possible and 25% said they lacked the time. Only 10% responded that they had no interest. The bottom line is that most people in the world cannot afford to travel or have social barriers to travel. It seems unfair to rate some people as “better” for doing something that is out of the reach of so many more.

6. Not Wanting to Travel is Okay

One of the myths behind travel is that it will open up the world, transforming the traveler into someone who is no longer closed minded, ignorant, prejudiced, provincial, etc. This implies that people who do not travel are closed minded, ignorant, prejudiced, and so on. Now, I certainly want people to look at the world beyond borders. I want people to think against our foreign policy and national interests. I agree that society would be better if there was less racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, ableism, and all the other “isms.” But, a person does not have to travel to be an open minded internationalist who wants to end social inequalities. Travel is not the only means nor the best means to become open minded and globally aware. There are plenty of travelers who travel with their prejudices and ignorance. There are plenty of travelers who change very little after their experience. Travel is not the magic key to betterment.

Most of my friends do not travel. Yet, all of my friends are aware of the world and committed to social justice. Some of my friends do not travel due to income, lack of vacation time, health, criminal background, and other barriers. I have one friend who adamantly says he does not want to travel. Is there anything wrong with this? Why would there be? Not everyone wants to travel, just as not everyone wants to plant a garden, watch birds, go for long hikes, collect stamps, go to sporting events, attend concerts, scuba dive, or any number of other activities. Not wanting to travel doesn’t make someone “bad” or stupid, or closed minded, or inferior. It is simply a matter of preference. A person can prefer not to travel, but still have a deep interest in learning about the world and still have a strong commitment to changing social injustices. Just as a person can travel and be entirely indifferent to social injustice and blind to privilege. There are many ways to learn about the world. Formal education, self-education, employment, community engagement, volunteering, activism, hobbies, etc. can connect individuals to people who are different from themselves and broaden the mind to social justice issues.

7. Travel Can Be Unethical

There are many unethical aspects to travel. Firstly, travel requires transportation- which generally means using more fossil fuels than one would use if they just stayed home. Travel can also be a source of waste. For instance, the airline industry produces 5.2 million tons of waste each year in the form of such things as empty bottles, uneaten meals, packaging, etc. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/airlines-cabin-waste/index.html

Many countries lack waste management systems, so even if a person wants to recycle or compost, there is a lack of infrastructure to support this, much less the more basic service of garbage collection. I have certainly littered when in other countries simply because proper trash disposal was nowhere to be found. Increased travel to natural areas can impact plant and animal populations and increased travel anywhere creates more demand for tourist supporting infrastructure such as roads, hotels, stores, and restaurants (which can result in loss of human neighborhoods or natural habitats depending upon where these are built). Travel does not make a person “better” in terms of their environmental impact.

Travel changes economies. With the decline of industry in my own region, the economy has shifted more towards tourism. The impact of this has been the expansion of lower paying, non-union, service industry jobs with higher turnover and greater sensitivity to economic downturn. Of course, workers can always fight back for higher wages, better conditions, and unions- which has been happening in the service economy, but this takes time and organization. On a global scale, catering to the tastes of tourists can mean a homogenization or Disneyfication of culture, shift in labor from subsistence to tourist economies or from production to service economies, marketization of culture and environments, privatization of resources, and dependency on tourism (which is a variable source of income), increased reliance on imports (as the economy shifts from producing things to services or to meet the needs of tourists) etc.

At the same time, economies change and tourism fills the gap of industries which once were (but are no longer profitable). It is very hard for island countries to maintain a global, “competitive advantage” due to trade laws, transportation costs, lack of land, lack of money for capital investment, etc. For instance, it would be very hard for many Pacific Island countries to be major exporters of produce, since the islands are far from each other, often small, and far away from global markets. Because of colonization and globalization, subsistence ways of life have been disrupted. Tourism is a way to generate some income and create some jobs. Tourism isn’t necessarily evil and may have the positive impact of injecting money into these economies. However, the plight of these countries is a complicated mix of colonization, current trade practices, climate change, and tourism. A well meaning tourist can attempt to patronize local businesses or engage in ecotourism, but the global economy is set-up to prohibit the development of some countries and continue the dependency of poorer countries on wealthier ones. Travel is an aspect of this dependency and the consumption practices of a single traveler, no matter how well meaning, cannot alter the nature of global capitalism. Thus, travel does not make a person “better” in terms of their role in the global economy.

8. Travel is Made Possible by Imperialism

From a socialist perspective, imperialism is a stage of capitalism wherein due to declining profits, developed economies look to perpetuate capitalism and avoid crisis by expanding trade into global markets, integrating more workers into their economies, and by destroying economic competitors. This is the motor behind globalization. As a U.S. citizen, I have found that ease of travel often correlates with degree of integration within the global economy and acceptance of the United States foreign policy. For instance, travel to North Korea is currently banned for most Americans (by our own government), Cuba was historically a place U.S. citizens were banned from traveling to due to our trade embargo, and American travel to Iran was briefly banned last year after the U.S. travel ban. Ease of travel is a function of U.S. imperialism (but also imperialism in general). For instance, in countries like Belarus and Turkmenistan, I was unable to use my ATM card. This seems like a minor inconvenience, but generally, this also means that these countries are not well integrated into the global banking system. On the other hand, some countries literally use U.S. dollars. All U.S. “territories” (i.e. modern colonies) use US dollars, including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Zimbabwe also uses U.S. dollars. For countries which don’t, I never have any issue converting my money, since it is widely accepted as a matter of our position in the global economy. The same cannot be said for someone carrying Albanian lek, who would be hard pressed to convert their money due to its obscurity and relative lack of value. In most countries I have traveled to, I have been able to find English speakers. Again, this is a matter of both American and British imperialism- which has spread the English language around the world and made it a language of economic and political importance. Likewise, Spanish and French are also used due to the history of colonialism and imperialism. Infrastructure which today supports tourists, such as ports, airports, and roads, were often built by colonial powers in the interest of extracting resources from these countries or to support military interests (an extension of imperialism). For example, Kinshasa airport was first built by the Belgians, Cairo International airport was first used as an airfield by the U.S. during World War II, Ahmed Ben Bella airport in Algeria was first used by the French in WWII as an airfield, etc. This isn’t to argue that countries do not build their infrastructure on their own, independent of imperialism, but that imperialism has shaped the globe, making it far easier for me to travel than someone from a country that was never a world power. Can I really argue that travel makes me “better” when my ability to travel has been lubricated by imperialism?

(In North Korea in 2010)

9. Travel Has No Intrinsic Value

The nature of value is complicated, since the word value is used in a variety of ways. In a Marxist sense, something has use value if it has “usefulness” or utility and exchange value if it can be expressed in price or traded as a commodity. Travel is a set of experiences, but not a singular entity or commodity. It may be many commodities which are consumed in the process of travel. In this sense, to my best understanding, travel does not have use value or exchange value, though aspects of travel may possess these things. Travel can be broken down into meals, hotel stays, flights, bus tickets, tours, and so on, which have exchange value. But, this is a very mechanistic view of what value means.

When most people talk about the value of travel, they are referring not to the economic value, but the value of memories and experiences. Of course, on an individual level, these things have value. The problem is that some people idealize this value above other experiences. Is the value of travel greater than the value of other things? It is tempting for some travelers to revel in the freedom of travel and to frame it as superior to such things as working 9-5, having children, settling down, staying in one place, forming routines, being tied down by responsibilities, and so on. Does travel have more value than working? Well, travel is often a lot more fun than working. But, is the value of fun greater than the value of work? What is the value of work (not in the Marxist sense) but the everyday, more generic sense? I work at a domestic violence shelter, as a substitute teacher, and at a women’s health clinic. Reproductive health is a heck of a lot more important than having fun! Access to abortion and other reproductive health care is fundamental to the equality of women (or anyone with the capacity of becoming pregnant). If everyone who worked in this field suddenly decided to take prolonged vacations, resulting in the shutdown of reproductive health services (this is an unrealistic scenario) society would be worse off. My own work in this area is minimal and part time, so it is important not to overstate my own contribution to this area. The main point is that travel is often framed as better than work, but work has a lot of value. My full time job is at a domestic violence shelter- it is hard to imagine that travel, which is done for fun and selfish reasons, is of a higher importance or value. Travel is important to me, but the social value of sheltering survivors/victims of domestic violence is greater than the value of travel. Leisure travel does not address a social problem or meet a social need.

I don’t wish to overstate the importance of work, since work can be draining, stressful, exploitative, a source of struggle, and necessity for survival. Because work is alienating and exploitative, escape from work through travel is idealized. But, escape from work does not improve labor conditions or improve the lot of working people. It does not alter the conditions of work. Still, people SHOULD work less. There should be more vacation time and more time to pursue anything which broadens the human experience, including travel, hobbies, community engagement, relationship building, education, etc. Yes, travel is one of the things that can enrich the human experience. But, so can having children, building meaningful relationships, connecting with a community, planting gardens, going for hikes, or any number of experiences. Work also has the potential to enrich the human experience, but to do so, it must be liberated from capitalist exploitation.

10. Travel Can Make You Worse

Finally, there is no rule that travel will make you better (whatever that is). Travel can make a person worse. By worse, I mean, it can give a person a sense of inflated importance. It can make someone believe that they are more knowledgeable or have lived a superior lifestyle. Like the character in Rocky and Bullwinkle, who prattled on about his marvelous adventurous, it can make a person a egotistical, elitist, and out of touch. Look at me! I’ve been there! I’ve done that! I know all about that! I know the best place to stay! I know the best deals! Of course, I fall victim to this as well, since I often write about travel- pretending that I have some important knowledge or insight to pass on. Well, I am doing that right now- passing on the insight that travel does not make you better!

Travel can make you “worse” in other ways. Travel can be tiring, stressful, socially exhausting, confusing, make people sick, costly, dangerous, frustrating, disappointing, etc. The toll of the challenges of travel can bring out the worst characteristics in some travelers. I myself have become withdrawn, anxious, depressed, fatigued, frustrated, judgemental, etc. while traveling. I can hardly say I am my best self when faced with challenges and new situations. I have certainly observed other travelers melt down or engage in maladaptive behaviors to combat or mute the stress of travel. Excessive eating, drinking, and spending are some ways that others might cope with the hardships of travel. Drinking too much is especially common. While there might be some awesome, cool, well-adapted, roll-with-the punches travelers out there, there are probably many more than have yelled at hotel staff or looked at difference with disgust.

In a material sense, travel can make you worse. When I spend money on travel, it means that I am not spending money on other things. I am going to be far worse off in my retirement years because I spent money on travel rather than saving for old age. I am not building my savings for a rainy day or unforeseen catastrophe. Travel is not the most prudent thing to spend money on. However, I value the experiences so I continue to spend money on them.

Travel can make a person’s health worse. I have been fortunate that I have never become majorly ill from travel, but travel does expose people to diseases that they might not otherwise encounter. I have almost zero risk of contracting malaria or yellow fever if I just stay home…

Conclusion:

This may seem rather negative, but I really feel that travel does not make you “better” just as formal education does not make you “better”, having a professional career does not make you “better,” or any number of other things makes a person better. I enjoy travel, but it does not make me better. In some ways, it makes me worse than others. I would love to travel more than I do. I encourage others to travel. I admire those who travel. However, I don’t know that it is the path to betterment or that such a pursuit is even a worthy goal. What is betterment outside of comparison, hierarchy, or elitism? In what ways does “better” concede to an economy that makes money by making us believe that we need to be more than what we are? Of course, at some basic level I want to improve upon myself, grow, change, and experience new things. But does accomplishing this make me better than others or better than my past self? At the core of these sorts of questions is the bigger question of what is meaningful in a world where everything dies or changes, where life is short and harsh for many, and never fully realized by the vast majority of us. Through the prism of pain and dying, the “best” among us are those who work the hardest to make the suffering in the world less and work to build a world wherein more people can explore their full humanity. Travel can sometimes support this goal, but for me, it tends to be a diversion.

Why Moths Matter and How to Attract Them to Your Garden

H. Bradford

6/15/18

Last week I had the odd idea that I wanted to attract moths to my garden. The idea is only odd because usually gardeners want to rid moths from the garden. Even though it is actually a butterfly, the cabbage moth (cabbage white butterfly or small white (pieris rapae)) is the scourge of vegetable growers. Cutworms generally grow into a variety of species of moths. Tent caterpillars and gypsy moths defoliate trees. Moths get a bad wrap-taking blame for some of the damage done by their more colorful kin. But, moths are useful in a number of ways. For one, they are important pollinators of the night shift. As a night shift worker myself, I can celebrate the work of these nocturnal comrades. Moths create silky cocoons, unlike butterflies, which create chrysalis. Humans have benefited by turning the cocoons of silk moths into a textile. Finally, moths are also a source of food for humans, such as the mopane caterpillars which are farmed and eaten in parts of southern Africa. Aside from human consumption, moths are food for bats, toads, small animals (Larum, 2018) as well as owls, flying squirrels, song birds, tree frogs (“The Xerces Society » Blog Archive » Gardening For Moths”, 2017). While there are many reasons why moths are important, the main reasons why a gardener might want to attract moths to their garden is for pollination, food to other garden critters, and as a celebration of their nocturnal beauty.

((Edit Note: the heading image for this post features three moth stock images from canva. I believe the top one may not be a moth since it is not holding its wings flat. I did not catch this when I created the image))

(image from Butterfly Conservation.org)

Both moths and butterflies belong to the order of insects called Lepidoptera, though moths tend to be characterized by such things as being nocturnal, holding their wings flat, and making silky cocoons. Recent research suggests that moths and butterflies have been around for over 200 million years, appearing before the first flowering plants. Traditionally, pollinators were believed to have evolved with flowering plants. However, the discovery of fossilized wing scales has pushed the existence of moths and butterflies back into history from 130 million years to over 200 million. They were first found in the Triassic Period, which is also when the first dinosaurs also appeared. Early butterflies and moths are believed to have looked more like moths with drab colors. More colorful butterflies only evolved after the extinction of dinosaurs (Osterath, 2018). So, while moths may not get the same attention as butterflies, their characteristics reach deeper back into history. Today, they out number butterflies 10 to 1. In the United States alone, there are 11,000 species of moths. They outnumber birds and mammal species of North America combined (Konkel, 2012).

Planting for Pollinating Moths:

As I mentioned earlier, moths are overlooked pollinators. Most studies regarding pollinators focus on diurnal pollinators like bees and butterflies. Pollinating moths do so when visiting a plant for nectar, which is used for energy, but some pollinate when visiting a plant to lay eggs. Many plants are pollinated by both diurnal and nocturnal pollinators. Research conducted on 289 species of plants which are pollinated exclusively or partially by moths, representing 75 taxa of plants found that moths are specifically helpful as pollinators because they travel further, have higher quality pollination, and greater interpopulation gene flow (Konkel, 2012). A study of moths in a Portuguese meadow showed that 76% of the moths that were captured carried pollen on them. One third of the moths had pollen from five or more plant species (Banza, Belo, and Evans 2015). Moths lack jaws, so they only drink nectar. Because moths don’t groom away or eat the pollen, they move more pollen from plants than pollinators that do (Tartaglia, 2015). Thus, moths are useful pollinators because they visit many plants, travel long distances, and don’t eat pollen.

Most moths are generalists, meaning they don’t require a specific plant to feed their larvae or to draw nectar from. However, there are a few plants such as Western prairie fringed orchid and senita cacti which depend exclusively on moths for pollination (Young, Auer, Ormes, Rapacciuolo, Schweitzer, and Sears, 2017). Western prairie fringed orchid is a wildflower found in the Midwest, including Minnesota. The orchid is endangered in Minnesota and federally listed as threatened. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, it is pollinated by “bedstraw hawk moth (Hyles gallii), the wild cherry sphinx (Sphinx drupiferarum), the Achemon sphinx (Eumorpha achemon), and the non-native spurge hawk moth (Hyles euphorbiae).” (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=PMORC1Y0S0) It would be impractical, difficult, and sometimes illegal (depending upon how the plant was obtained) to grow this particular orchid, however a gardener could grow plants which support the pollinating moth populations. For instance, wild cherry sphinx moth larvae are hosted on wild cherry, plum, apple, lilac, and hackberry bushes. Adults feed on the nectar of deep throated flowers such as Japanese honeysuckle (Wild cherry sphinx Sphinx drupiferarum, 2018). Achemon sphinx moth caterpillars enjoy grape plants and adults feed on the nectar of Japanese honeysuckle, petunias, and phlox (Achemon sphinx Eumorpha achemon, 2017). Both species are said to like Japanese honeysuckle in particular, which is non-Native plant available at nurseries. Perhaps because the flowers are white, tubular, and fragrant it is a favorite for those moths.

Japanese Honeysuckle image from Colombia University

Senita cactus and yucca plants are also pollinated exclusively by moths. If a gardener happens to live in an area which supports yucca or cacti, growing these to attract moths might be a novel idea. However, Minnesota is not within the range of the yucca moth. There are some yucca varieties which may be cold hardy to zone five, but since the plant is only pollinated by yucca moths it doesn’t make much sense to plant them outside the range of the moth. Since most moths are generalists, there are plenty of other plants that can attract them to the garden. It is often suggested that gardeners plant pale colored flowers so that moths can see them at night. Though I am not sure if this is scientifically proven, and may be more useful in helping humans see both the moths and flowers in the dark. It is also often advised that moth attracting flowers should be fragrant at night. Moth attracting flowers include dianthus, red valerian, campion, soapwort, wild honeysuckle, Sweet William, evening primrose, clematis, and flowering tobacco (Carlton, 2015) Heather, lavender, jasmine, mandevilla, madonna lily, phlox, heliotrope, gardenian, butterfly bush, and spider flower are also popular with moths (Miller, 2009) In Minnesota, four-o-clocks, petunia, fireweed, dwarf blue gentian, dame’s rocket, madonna lily, scarlet bergamot, common bergamot, and weigelia can be grown to attract adult moths and were rated as excellent by Carol Henderson for attracting wildlife (Krischik, 2013).

Although it may seem unconventional, reserving some vegetables for moths or larvae, also would draw moths to the garden. For instance, tomato hornworms grown into attractive, Five spotted hawk moths (Moth Pollination, n.d.). Hawk moths pollinate tubular plants like honeysuckle, datura, brugmansias. (Thompson, 2015). They belong to the family Sphingidae, which also includes include sphinx moths. Larger species of these moths, such as the white lined sphinx moth, are sometimes mistaken for hummingbirds, and like hummingbirds they are active in the day (or at least some are) and like large, nectar filled blooms. As a general rule, flowers that butterflies like tend to also be liked by moths. Light colored, tubular, fragrant, night blooming flowers are also attractive to moths and make for a nice night garden.

Beautiful Moths:

In addition to attracting adult moths, gardeners can consider attracting moth caterpillars to their garden. For instance, one of the most stunning moths of Minnesota is the pistachio green Luna moth. However, Luna moths are among the moths that lack functioning mouths. Thus, a gardener must consider the needs of caterpillars, which eat the leaves of American beech, willow, White oak, Black cherry, black walnut, red maple, sumac, and other nut and fruit bearing trees (Medina, 2012). The Polyphemus moth is another stunning moth, and like the Luna moth, it is the Saturnidae family. This family consists of some of the largest moths in the world, including the Atlas moth of Asia, with a wingspan of up to almost 12 inches across. One of the largest North American moth is the Royal Walnut moth, which has a wingspan of 4.5 inches and is once again, a member of the Saturniidae family (Konkel, 2012). These moths are more commonly found in the Southern United States, and as the name suggests, the caterpillars feed on walnut and hickory foliage. Since these non-feeding moths live short lives as adults and do not visit flowers, they are not major pollinators. However, they are large, beautiful moths often with patterned markings including eye spots. Their caterpillars can also be quite large and remarkable. Planting with these moths in mind is more for beauty than function. Rather than planting vegetables or flowers, planting trees or shrubs would attract these moths. For instance, in Minnesota, the four inch Cercropia moth caterpillar feeds on cherry, linden, maple, boxelder, elm, oak, birch, willow, hawthorn, and poplar leaves. The moth can have a wingspan of up to six inches or more and it has a bright white and red stripe and eyespot (Cercopia Moth, n.d.). The smaller but also striking three and a half inch, polyphemus moth caterpillar eats the leaves of “ash, birch, maple, oak, and willow. It has also been known to eat grape leaves” (Hahn, 2005). For those who live in warmer regions and feel like trying an interesting hobby or agricultural endeavor, a gardener could attempt to raise silkworms, which once again, are part of the Saturnidae family. Silkworm larvae feed exclusively on mulberry leaves. Minnesota is at the edge of the range of red mulberries, but perhaps due to climate change the tree will expand its range. Mulberries themselves are attractive trees with bountiful, edible berries. Recently, some red mulberry trees were found growing in Southern Minnesota, but they had otherwise not been documented in the state since 1920 (Thayer, 2017). In short, a “moth garden” might include trees or shrubs that are attractive to the bold and beautiful Saturnidae family.

Lighting the Way:

Some online resources for attracting moths to a garden or yard suggest turning on a yard light. Anyone who has left a porch light on, knows that this draws moths in. However, I am not sure if this is the best way to attract moths to a garden. Light pollution may actually contribute to the decline of moths. Moths are attracted to shorter wavelength light, with variation across species and between sexes. For example, male moths are more attracted to light traps than females. Lights that produce heat can kill or harm moths. Artificial lights impact how females lay eggs, sometimes suppressing egg layings, altering where eggs are laid, or resulting in hyper egg laying. Lights can also confuse moth’s navigation, their eyesight, and delay nocturnal activity. Artificial lights can give advantages to some moth predators and can hinder a moth’s ability to evade bats (Macgregor, Pocock, Fox, and Evans, 2014). For instance, the tiger moth uses clicking noises to evade the sonar of bats (Konkel, 2012). One theory is that moths are confused by the light, so they behave as if it is day and bats are not around. Light also disrupts the reproduction of moths, as light disrupts female production of pheromones and male moths become distracted from following pheromone trails. When moths reproduce, artificial light impacts the size of caterpillars, causing them to be smaller (Macgregor, 2017).

Because moths evolved to be active in the dark, they do not require much light to find their way. Moths actually have evolved a keen sense of smell and can follow the scent of a flower several kilometers (Tartaglia, 2015). A male giant silkworm moths can smell a female from up to seven miles away (Konkel, 2012). Moths do not smell with nostrils, but with their antennae (Tartaglia, 2015). While scientists often use light to attract moths for studies and perhaps turning the lights on from time to time to get a better peek at moths is probably alright, using lights, or at least short wavelength lights is probably not very helpful to moths. If a gardener wants to create a night garden for human enjoyment rather than moths, perhaps dim solar lights or glow in the dark garden art would be less disruptive. An even safer idea is to observe moths using red filtered light or to attract moths using smells rather than light. If a person does choose to have yard lights, avoiding blue light (which is more attractive to moths) and turning out lights or putting them on a timer can reduce the negative impact of light pollution. Finally, some moths can be attracted to the yard with smells rather than light and there are several recipes of how to create moth solutions (Macgregor, 2017). One recipe calls for 454 grams of black treacle, 1 kg of brown sugar, 500 ml of brown ale, and a paintbrush. After simmering the ale for five minutes, add the brown sugar and treacle, stirring and dissolving, then letting simmer for two more minutes. Once the mixture has cooled, it can be painted onto trees or fence posts, avoiding moss and lichen. Another recipe calls for mixing a bottle of wine with 1 kg of sugar, dissolving the sugar into the wine over heat. This mixture can be applied to cloth or ropes, which can be hung from trees or posts to attract moths (Butterfly Conservation, 2015). Recipes for moth sugaring or wine ropes can be flexible, using whatever is on hand, including old fruit such as bananas, various sorts of alcohol, sugar, molasses, maple syrup, etc. The mixture should be thick and paste like and can be applied to trees or rope (Moskowitz, 2011).

image from UNC Charlotte Urban Institute

Moth Conservation:

All pollinating insects have been in decline over recent decades, and with them, the plants that they pollinate. In Britain, ⅔ of the species of larger moths have declined over the last 40 years. Like diurnal pollinators, nocturnal pollinators like moths are challenged by climate change, use of agro chemicals, and habitat fragmentation (Konkel, 2012). In the United States, the decline of some moths can also be attributed to the introduction of the parasitoid fly between 1906–1986 to control gypsy moths. Compsilura concinnata did little to control gypsy moth populations and attacks 200 other species of moths and butterflies. Hawk moths are on of them. IIn a study by Young, Auer, Ormes, Rapacciuolo , Schweitzer , Sears (2017) one third of the species of hawk moth’s studied had declined between 1900-2012, while four species increased. Control of two of the moths as pests may have contributed to some decline in addition to the introduction of the parasitic fly.

Gardeners can support moth populations by planting trees, vegetables, and flowers that host their larvae or provide nectar to adults. Being mindful of light pollution is another way to help moths. Gardeners can also avoid pesticides. Even natural pesticides can be harmful to moths. Bacillus thuringiensis is toxic to larvae of both butterflies and moths (Miller, 2009). Gardeners can also get involved with National Moth Week, which is held the last week of July. During the week, participants can join citizen science projects to identify and count local moth populations. Participants can also host events and submit their findings to the National Moth Week website (National Moth Week, n.d.). Of course, these are mostly small scale, individual, feel good activities. To really protect moths, and all of the life on the planet, individuals must move away from backyard solutions to building social movements against climate change, the profit driven waste and destruction of industrial agriculture within capitalism, and the exploitative relationship to nature that the profit system both encourages and cannot escape. Environmental movements that mobilize all segments of society towards the overhaul of our economic system and which are given weight by the power of workers and the connections to other mass movements are the only way to challenge the large scale destruction of capitalism. Thus, while planting white flowers and learning more about moths can be a wonderful hobby, it is no substitute for the structural changes necessary for protecting habitats, changing agricultural practices while ensuring an end to poverty and hunger, and thwarting climate change. Historically, the example of the Peppered moth illustrated the impact of industrialization on the environment. I think then that aside from being a night pollinator, moths are a symbol of capitalism.

Conclusion:

Moths are really fascinating. I have already begun planting with moths in mind and will be on the lookout for these overlooked garden visitors. Perhaps I’ll even try to participate in National Moth Week this July. Moths are important pollinators, far more plentiful than butterflies, some of the largest insects, misunderstood and under studied, and both economically destructive and important. At the same time, there are imperiled by habitat loss, light pollution, pesticides, and climate change. I am convinced that moths matter and are worth learning more about it. One of the tragedies of life is that most of the life around us remains anonymous, unknown and unseen. I lack the time and discipline to uncover the nature of the hidden world around me. In the night, there is a world of moths (among many other creatures). Some lack mouths and live a short time. My senses are muted by capitalism and my own life is too short to learn and do all that I wish to. Life is truncated by labor and confined by the resources of class. I like moths though. They are night workers like me.

Growing Injustice: Several Problematic Plants

H. Bradford

6/4/18

Warm weather is finally here, so I have spent the last two weeks readying my garden for the season. Since I’ve been planting more, I have plants on the brain. Lately, I have been thinking about plants and issues of racism (and in one case, anti-semitism). Some plants have some very questionable names. Other plants have racially sensitive histories that social justice minded gardeners should consider. Plants like Wandering Jew, Kaffir lime, Nyjer seed, Indian Paintbrush, and even Collard Greens may be taken for granted by most growers, but contain issues of race and ethnicity. Thus, the following blog post offers an overview of some of these offenders, so that we can grow gardens as well as a more just world for everyone! (The list of problematic plants is not comprehensive. I also did not cite sources within the text, but a list of links that I drew from can be found at the end).

Wandering Jew:

If you visit a greenhouse, you may find a plant called a Wandering Jew. There are several plants that bear this name, including three species of spiderwort plants, four species of dayflower, and two other plants. The spiderwort species are the sort that seem most commonly used as indoor plants. A few years ago, a local greenhouse recommended a Purple Wandering Jew plant for our home, since they can grow in lower light conditions. The employee assured my housemate and I that there was nothing antisemitic about the bushy, viney plant. The term Wandering Jew comes from 13th Century Christian folklore. The character is a Jewish man who was said to have taunted Jesus before he was crucified. As punishment for his taunt, he was cursed to walk the Earth until the return of Christ. In some stories, his clothes and shoes never wear out and after 100 years, he returns to being a younger man. He was a perpetual traveler, unable to rest, but able to converse in all of the languages of the world. This is not based on any actual Biblical story, though it may have been inspired by the story of Caine and European paganism. Much like Big Foot or ghosts today, Europeans of the time believed that they had actually seen this character. For hundreds of year, even into the present day, this character has appeared in literature and art.

Gaston Malingue’s painting “The Wandering Jew”

While the character is very fictional, the antisemitic context the character was born from is not. In 1290, Edward the I expelled all Jewish people from England. During the middle ages, Jews were banned from owning land. They were also barred from trade guilds. Medieval cities also relegated Jewish populations to certain areas. In the 14th century, Jews were expelled from France, Germany, Portugal, and Spain. Expulsions and exclusion from various economic activities provided a material reality for the idea that Jewish people were outsiders or wanderers. Thus, “The Wandering Jew” represents not only a person, but a stereotype regarding the nature of all Jewish people. This stereotype has been used in modern times to incite hate, such as the Nazi film entitled “Der Erwige Jude,” which revived and modernized the medieval myth and envisioning modern Jewish people as criminal, lazy, and perverse cosmopolitans who controlled the world through banking, commerce, politics, and the media. The idea of the Wandering Jew has

With this history in mind, calling a rambling, hard to destroy plant a “Wandering Jew” does not seem like the most culturally sensitive nomenclature, to say the least. Interestingly, the Swedish Cultural Plant Database (SKUD) has changed the name of the “Wandering Jew” plant as well as another plant with an anti-semitic name (Jew Cherry which we know as Chinese Lantern Plants). I am uncertain what SKUD renamed the plant to, but perhaps Purple Spiderwort, Variegated Spiderwort, or Wandering Spiderwort might be some good ideas. There are other plants with “Jew” in their title and these should be changed as well. While not a plant, no one should call a wood ear mushroom a Jew’s Ear. I could find no similar examples of plant names that are unflattering/prejudiced towards Christians or other religious groups, but if there were and even if the group did not share the same history of oppression and genocide, there seems no reasonable argument to use derogatory common names. If I saw such plants at a local store or greenhouse, I would suggest a name change to the manager.

Collard Greens:

A few years ago, I planted collard greens. I was curious about this vegetable and wanted to grow it because I enjoy trying new things. However, my housemate suggested that the name was racist since it sounds like “Coloured Greens.” The leaf green is associated with African American cuisine, so it seemed plausible that the name may have had a more racist origin. Thankfully, it doesn’t! The word Collard comes from “colewort” in Middle English perhaps influenced by Old Norse “kal” for cabbage, and earlier still, kaulos, which is Greek for stalk. The “Col” and collard is found in other words like cauliflower, kale, coleslaw, German kohl for cabbage, etc.

While the leafy green is more prominent in the cuisine of the Southern United States, it is also used in Brazilian, Indian, and Portuguese cooking. It was cultivated in Greek and Roman gardens 2000 years ago as is closely related to kale. Prior to this, it is theorized that wild cabbages were in cultivation in Europe 3000 years ago and up to 6000 years ago in China. Leafy cabbages were also grown in Mesopotamia. While collard greens in particular (in contrast to other leafy cabbages) have long been consumed by Europeans, the history is not devoid of racism or contention. A controversy arose a few years ago when Whole Foods Co-op suggested that customers buy collard greens and prepare them with ingredients such as cranberries, garlic, and peanuts. Some African Americans felt that this was cultural appropriation of a vegetable used in their cuisine and food gentrification of a vegetable by white people who have recently discovered it and have now re-imagined it as something trendy. This critique is not unfounded. Afterall, Neiman Marcus sold out of their $66 frozen trays of collard greens in 2016. Historically, collard greens, like many members of the cabbage family were poor people food. (Though Romans actually esteemed cabbages as medicinal and a luxury.) Members of the cabbage family are cool season crops with mild frost resistance, making them part of winter staples or lean time food. African Americans came to the United States as slaves and were only allowed to grow a small selection of vegetables for themselves. Collards were one of them. While the vegetable is not African in origin, the methods of preparation were. West Africans use hundreds of species of leafy greens and prepare them in ways that maintain their high nutrient content. Enslaved Africans found fewer wild greens here and came to rely on collards, which were brought here by the British. (Depending upon where the slaves were taken from, they may have been familiar with leafy cabbages as in the Middle Ages, cabbages of various sorts were traded into Africa through Morocco and Mali). They are unique among cabbages in that they can continue to produce leaves over their growing season. They can be harvested for months when other vegetables quit in the cold weather. Collards helped slaves to survive due to their productivity. For this reason, poor white people also grew collards. It is a cheap, productive, healthy plant. Although white Southerners grew the plant, it was a marginal crop to European settlers and African Americans deserve credit for popularizing the use of greens and their preparation.

image from Foodnetwork.com

I love plants. I love gardening. I have no problems eating vegetables. But, collard greens do raise the question of how white people (at least those who aren’t poor and from the south) should approach collard greens. On one hand, when food is gentrified, the cost goes up for those who have traditionally eaten it. For instance, after kale was deemed a superfood, its cost rose 25%. If food prices rise, it can drive poor people to unhealthier, cheaper foods. Collard greens are also a problem when they are commercialized and fetishized. Judging by the tone and content of internet articles on this topic, I don’t know that most African Americans would take issue with a white individual growing a small amount of collard greens for personal, private use for love of gardening and attempting to try new vegetables. In the case of Whole Foods and Neiman Marcus, it represented capitalizing on and changing the culinary traditions of Black people. The foods were presented in inauthentic ways, devoid of history, and for profit by cashing in on a contextless notion of the exotic. Since the vegetable is tied to the traumatic history of survival and slavery and has cultural importance (such as a feature of New Year’s meals) it isn’t something to take lightly. Collard greens have double the iron and protein than kale and 18% more calcium, so there may be legitimate reasons that many people should grow them. Personally, I am curious about many vegetables. Does my curiosity “Colombusize” the culture, culinary traditions, or agriculture of others? In small ways, yes. My hope is that I can be mindful of my decisions and the history/power embedded in even the simplest things.

Nyjer Seed:

Anyone who wants to attract finches to their yard may be familiar with nyjger seed, which is also called thistle seed. The seed does not come from the thistle plant and the name “nyjer seed” seems suspiciously like another n word. When I was a kid, the seed was spelled “niger” which also makes the seed a little suspicious. We pronounced it in a way that is similar to Nigeria or Niger in Africa. Unfortunately, some people did not pronounce it this way and instead thought it was pronounced like a racial slur. The bird seed industry actually changed the name of the seed because it had confused people or had been mispronounced. Nyjer is the 1998 trademarked name of the Wild Bird Feeding Industry. While the name might suggest that the seed came from Nigeria or Niger, nyjer seed actually comes from the Guizotia abyssinica plant which grows in the highlands of Ethiopia. I found a reference to the seed being called Nigerian thistle, which to me indicates that whomever named the seed must have had some confusion about the geography of Africa or, perhaps generically called it “niger” seed as a stand in for Africa itself. Nigeria, Niger, and the Niger River are all located in West Africa whereas Ethiopia is in East Africa. The genus Guizotia contains six species, of which five are native to Ethiopia. A distribution map of the species shows that it grows naturally in some areas of Uganda, Malawi, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan. It also grows in India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Nepal. The plants found in and around India are believed to have been brought there long ago by Ethiopian migrants, who also brought millet to the region. Therefore, Nyger seed really has nothing to do with the countries of its (former) namesake and represents a sort of “imagined Africa” rather than any geographical or botanical reality.

Field of Nyjer Seed plants in Ethiopia

While in the United States, most people feed the oily black seeds to birds, it is used in the cuisines of India and Ethiopia. It has been been grown in Ethiopia as an oil crop since antiquity and today, makes up 50% of Ethiopia’s oil seed production. Overall, the main producer of commercial nyjer seed is India, followed by Myanmar and Ethiopia. About 50,000 metric tons of the seed are imported each year into the United States. It is the only commercial bird seed which is largely imported. This seems to be a tremendous amount of seed- which ultimately goes to bellies of wild birds! The use of nyjer seed seemingly follows the rise of the U.S. as a post-war global power. Bird feeding became more common through the 1950s, which resulted in demand for commercial bird food. As people increasingly fed birds, it became apparent that certain seeds were likely to attract different (more socially desirable) species of birds. Nyjer seed was adopted as a bird food in the United States in the 1960s. The first tube feeders used for the seed became commercially available in 1972. In the late 1960s, the seed had to be treated with heat, because it was often accompanied by the seeds of invasive weeds. All nyger seed imports must be subjected to 250 degree heat sterilization treatment.

image from Northwest Nature Shop

Despite small scale experiments, Nyjer is not currently grown in North America, and in an experiment between N.A grown seen and Ethiopian seed, the birds preferred the Ethiopian grown seed. Reading between the lines, it is important to think about what the import of this seed actually means. Various countries have tried to grow this seed, including the Soviet Union under the guidance of Ivan Vavilov. However, the plants do not yield enough seeds to make it economically viable. The region of India which produces the most seed is Madhya Pradesh, which is the sixth poorest part of India (per capita GDP). The regions which grow the seed are also home to ethnic minorities, such as Nagar Haveli which is the home of the Warli tribe. While I could find no articles which specifically addressed the plight of nyjer seed farmers, it stands to reasoning that because the center of production for these seeds are underdeveloped countries (and even greater underdeveloped regions within those countries) that the work conditions of those farmers is probably characterized by low pay, long hours, and hard work. Since some of these countries actually used these seeds as an oil and a human food, the movement towards exporting the seeds to the West as bird food has likely reduced its use as a subsistence crop. Finally, the fact that it has not been viable in the agriculture of more developed countries means that it is probably a labor intensive crop (and our labor is too expensive due to labor laws, organization) hence, the fact that it is imported rather than domestically grown.

Personally, I love birds. I want to attract finches to the yard and provide them with a fatty, seed that they love. At the same time, it certainly represents a lot of privilege that I can buy imported seeds (sometimes eaten by humans) to give to the birds. The origin of the seed itself is obscured by its name. There seems to be a lot wrong with nyger seeds. I think that my task as a socialist is to learn more about the specific labor conditions related to the seeds (since there is not a lot of information out there). If there was more awareness regarding the seeds, perhaps there would be more interest in fair trade or better working conditions for those producers. It is also possible that I could try growing my own seeds for the birds rather than relying on expensive imported seed. Nyger seed as been experimentally grown on a small scale in Minnesota. I think it is a fascinating seed with a wealth of history. At the same time, more should be done to illuminate the history and economic conditions of the seed.

Image from The Zen Birdfeeder

Kaffir Lime:

About a year ago, I picked up some gardening books from the library. One of the books was about growing citrus indoors. It introduced me to the Kaffir Lime. I really didn’t think anything of this name at the time. It sounded vaguely Middle Eastern, but I didn’t associate it with any particular meaning. Little did I know that kaffir is actually a racist term. The k-word is a racial slur in South Africa. The k-word was used in Arabic to describe non-believers, but was used by European colonists in South Africa to describe the African population. The word is so offensive, that there have been legal actions taken against those who have used the slur in South Africa. The name of the lime itself may come from Sri Lanka, where the lime is grown and where there is an ethnic group which self identifies as kaffirs. It is also possible that the fruit literally referred to non-believers, as it may have been named by Muslims who saw it cultivated by non-Muslims in Southeast Asia. However, because the word is racially offensive in most other contexts and considered hate speech in South Africa, a different name is an order. In Southeast Asia, the fruit is called Makrut, which has been suggested as a viable name change.

Indian Paintbrush:

While this example is not as offensive as the k-lime, there are many plants that are named “Indian x” such as Indian Paintbrush, Indian posy (butterfly weed), Indian Blanket (Firewheel), Indian pipe, Indian grass, etc. There are many North American plants which have common names which invoke something related to Native Americans. However, the way that these common names are used are not accurate, flattering, or supportive of Native Americans. For instance, Indian Paintbrush sounds quaint. As a child, I imagined that perhaps the flowers were really used as paint brushes by Native Americans. Indian Paintbrush, also called Prairie Fire, was used as a leafy green, medicine, and shampoo by some Native Americans. But, it was not used as a paintbrush. While the flower may resemble a brush covered in bright red paint, it could easily be called Paintbrush plant. Using the word “Indian” invokes something wild, mythical, or even something silly (such as literally using the plant as a paintbrush). It reduces Native Americans into an idea about something primitive, whimsical, or even non-existent rather than actual, living people, with actual uses for plants. This is true of the other plants as well. Many of the “Indian” plants are wild plants that are not commonly domesticated (though some are used in ornamental or “Native” gardens. There is also a colonizing tone to these names, as these are not the names that Native Americans themselves gave the plants but imagined names from colonizers and their descendents. There are often alternate common names for these plants, so there is no excuse to call them names which invoke a mythical idea of Native Americans. Better yet, maybe some of the plants could be given names from actual Native American languages. This would demonstrate that Native Americans knew, used, and named these plants long before the arrival of settlers. For instance, Ojibwe called the Indian Paintbrush plant Grandmother’s Hair (though I don’t know what this translates to in Ojibwe). Since plants were used by many tribal groups for different purposes, it would be difficult to determine which language should take precedence over another. At the very least, I think it is important to be mindful of language and consider existing alternative names (which I haven’t always been, since I was raised calling certain plants Indian Pipe or Indian Paintbrush).

image from Wikipedia

Conclusion:

There will always be some people who feel that these issues are no big deal. Some of these people feel that there is nothing offensive about using traditional plant names or that they know a Jewish person who doesn’t mind “Wandering Jew” or a Native American friend who likes to call plants Indian Paintbrush or Indian Grass. The world is diverse and certainly there are diverse opinions on these matters. To those folks, this probably seems like much ado about nothing. On the other hand, others may feel that issues of racism or oppression in general are much bigger than the kind of bird seed we use or what we call a lime. It is better to focus on the big picture than get caught up in the nuances of language. As for myself, I feel that this is a fascinating topic to think about and that to me, it uncovers subtle and not so subtle ways that various kinds of oppression are built into something as simple as what we call a plant or what we grow in the garden. For me, thinking about these topics is intellectually satisfying (I am interested in learning more about the history of plants) as well as a way for me to be a better, more mindful activist. At the end of the day, helping to grow social movements is far more important than the plants that we grow and know. Growing as an activist means working with others in organizations towards social change, but also the internal change that comes with challenging assumptions and rethinking what is taken for granted. With that said, hopefully this post helps others to grow in how they think about plants, but also their place in society.

Reflections and Lessons from the Husky Fire

H. Bradford

5/7/18

I learned about the Husky Fire just before 11 am on April 26th when I was about to leave the Women’s Health Center in Duluth. A co-worker from Superior rushed into the office and announced that just after 10 am there had been an explosion at the Murphy Oil Refinery, that there are evacuations, and multiple deaths. The director turned on the television in the lobby, which reported 20 casualties. My initial reaction was horror and anger. I felt horror because it seemed as though there were many injuries and deaths. I also felt horror since I was returning home from Superior after working ten hours at Safe Haven (overnight) and three hours at the Women’s Health Center. I didn’t know what I would be returning home to or if I would be able to return home. I felt anger because I just wanted to go to sleep! I had already worked through the night and into the morning. It was a terribly inconvenient time to have an industrial disaster. I texted my housemates Adam and Lucas an alarmed text about evacuations and deaths (which later proved to not be entirely true), finished the last 10 minutes of my shift, and headed home to the unknown of Superior.

(An image that I believe was used in the Duluth News Tribune)

Traffic was normal on the way home. For a moment, I panicked that the Blatnik Bridge was closed, as there was a caravan of large street cleaning vehicles blocking access to the bridge. The bridge was not closed. The vehicles were partaking in the normal activity of cleaning the streets. Still, things were clearly amiss as I could see a giant, black cloud in the distance- spreading menacingly away from the Husky Refinery (which I had until that morning thought was the Murphy Oil Refinery. I was not aware that the Alberta based company, Husky Energy, had purchased the facility in August 2017). Despite the sprawling black cloud, everything in Superior was oddly normal. I noticed someone outside doing yard work. A dog was sitting out in the yard. Young children were playing in a park. I thought it was bizarre and reminded me of Pripyat after the Chernobyl accident. People slept in their beds, then awoke, and went about their business as radiation saturated them. Chernobyl may seem like an unfair comparison, but oddly, the Husky Fire and Chernobyl both happened on April 26th (a collapsed country and thirty two years apart). In any event, at that point of time, there was not as much concern. My roommates didn’t seem concerned yet and the earlier alarm about multiple deaths and evacuations was found to be untrue. (The word casualty does not mean death, but can mean injury- such as casualties of war. However, since the word is often used to mean someone who has been killed, there was some initial misunderstanding about the media use of the word. As for evacuations, as of 11:15 ish when I returned home, there was nothing beyond the immediate area of the disaster (to my knowledge).

I settled into bed, unsettled, but trying not to worry too much. No one else seemed very worried. Not the kids playing or person carrying on the yard work. I spent time looking at the news, but everything seemed to be under control. Before going to bed, I told my roommate Lucas to shut all of the windows, but he laughed at me. I think he even made a Chernobyl joke, about how I had been there, and was the expert now. I couldn’t fall asleep. The window was shut, but I imagined invisible particles entering the house and breathing them as I slept. I thought about dying in my sleep or just inhaling carcinogenic debris. I felt angry again. I felt mad about having worked the night shift and that I was unable to get the rest I needed. Lack of sleep often invokes anger in me. Eventually, I did fall asleep…for about an hour… before Lucas knocked on my bedroom door and said that an area 3 miles around the refinery and 10 miles downwind was being evacuated. There had been more explosions. He said he was heading to Duluth. I was crabby and exhausted, so I said I would just stay in bed. I pulled two more blankets over my head, as if it would give me added protection from the poisonous smoke. Lucas texted me what seemed a frantic message that the traffic over the bridge was extremely backed up and he was stuck. I became more concerned as it seemed that the people of Superior had finally mobilized to escape. The schools had closed. I think the area of evacuation at that time was as near as UW Superior (which isn’t that far from where I live). While I think that I was just outside the evacuation area, three miles is not a magical perimeter- outside of which everyone is safe. Oh, 3.2 miles- that’s cool! Those particles are 100% gone at exactly the three mile mark.

I eventually dragged my extremely tired body out of bed. Tiredness tried hard to battle fear. But eventually fear won as my boyfriend said he was leaving for work early, but that he thought I should leave the house too. He said he wanted to know that I was safe. I am often feel that my needs (such as sleep) don’t matter much to the universe, so it was touching that my safety was concerning. I told him that I would also go to back to work. I work at a domestic violence shelter and our employee break room has a futon. I thought that if I fled Superior, I could go to my job and rest for a while. It is odd how work can be a place of refuge. My work is a shelter- so it is equipped to – well, accommodate the needs of people who need a place to stay. I didn’t rush to go there, but I did call my job to give them a heads up that I would be trying to sleep there. Once my refuge was secured, I ambled around the house trying to throw a few things together. My brain wasn’t in evacuation mode. It was in “What do I need to bring with me to take a nap at work mode?”. I packed only a few things, such as a toothbrush and some toiletries. I also took a shower. Our hot water heater had broken a week prior and had FINALLY been fixed that day. I went a week with only one shower (which I took at UW-Superior’s fitness center). So, showering was a priority above escape from the death cloud.

I snapped a few photos of the cloud on my way out of Superior and then when I arrived in Duluth. After taking the photos, I was happy to report to work and find that my supervisor had fixed up the employee break room nicely for me. She gave me new, clean bedding (not the stained, worn bedding the residents end up with) and had turned the futon into a bed. The shelter had been made aware that CASDA, a domestic violence shelter in Superior, had been evacuated. Safe Haven was ready to accept people staying at CASDA, but in the end, they went to a hotel. As for our own residents, they were gathered around the television, watching the news coverage. The cloud was much larger and darker now. They asked me questions and seemed happy that I was safe. That was also very touching. They are all homeless and have gone through truly awful things. Still, they had enough emotional reserves left to care about a worker at the shelter (who often make their lives harder by enforcing rules or determining the length of their stay.) As I settled down and tried to sleep, my mother called. She did not know about the accident until she drove home and noticed the cloud in the distance. The cloud from the fire could be seen over fifty miles away in Cromwell. She offered that I could stay with her. It was an hour away and I was beyond tired (having obtained about an hour of sleep), so I declined, but said maybe I would depending upon how bad the situation was.

I really didn’t sleep well. I checked the news. There were reports that fire fighters were unable to fight the fire and were just waiting. It was reported that it could burn for days. I also read that there were concerns about a tank of hydrogen flouride. I learned that hydrogen flouride is used at about 50 oil refineries in the US. I also learned that it becomes hydroflouric acid when it contacts moisture, such as that the moisture of the skin, lungs, eyes, etc. and causes burns, blindness, fluid in the lungs, and other nasty health effects. This was the first that I had learned about the tank. The tank was supposed to be near the fire, but there was no reports of HOW close. Nor, was there reports that the tank (which was 150-200 feet away from the uncontrollable blaze) was full of a chemical that could kill thousands of people if the tank exploded. My brain could not turn off. There was too much information to process and too much lack of information to ponder. I may have slept an additional 45 min to an hour, but eventually decided to wake up. Sleep was simply not on the agenda. Instead, I woke up, gathered myself, and decided to go for a walk. By then, it was nearly 7pm and there were reports that the fire had been put out and the evacuation would likely be called off later in the evening. That was encouraging.

Later that night, I joined a few friends for trivia. I talked to Chris about my concerns about the tank of hydrogen flouride, which she agreed was nasty and would kill/injure thousands of people. She looked at a google map of the Husky Refinery and we tried to figure out where the tank was in relation to the fire. This information was not available to the public at that time. She concluded that it might be one of the smaller tanks by the railroad tracks, as it is unlikely that they would want to transport the chemical that far from the trains that carry it. This didn’t allay my fears, since these small tanks were not far from the fire (but father away than the ACTUAL tank turned out to be). Lucas, one of my roommates, decided he was going back to Superior despite the ongoing concern about the tank. Adam had already been in Superior for several hours, since he needed to take care of his chickens and felt he was safe in the basement. This made it difficult for me to sustain my concern. I definitely wanted to go home (since I had slept a sum of two hours in the last day and a half or so). I hadn’t packed anything. The evacuation didn’t really come with instructions of what to take or for how long to expect. Ultimately, I returned to Superior since I didn’t want to be the one roommate out of four who was too chicken to go home. After all, even the chickens weren’t evacuated. There is a stigma about being fearful. It is a sign of weakness. Personally, I don’t think that I made a rational choice. I also don’t feel that my house mates were entirely rational about remaining. But, I think that making smart choices requires information. I don’t think we had the information required to make smart choices of staying in Superior or not. The risks of the tank exploding and nature of hydroflouric acid would have been important information. The suggestion that the evacuation would end as early as 9pm also created false hope and a false sense of security. Smart choices also require the material support to make a choice. In my case, in a very real sense I was extremely tired. By the end of trivia, I could no longer remember my telephone number. I also could not remember who Anthony Bourdain was (a trivia answer I knew, but could not remember). I don’t think I had the mental wherewithal to drive a safe distance or make an informed decision. In a way, I feel that I failed my friends by not being more insistent and concerned for our safety.

I returned home sometime after midnight. I noted that there was a chemical odor in the air, but continued inside to my bed. The evacuation order was not lifted until 6am. I was dead tired, but only slept a few hours. Again, I was obsessed with looking up snippets of news. But, throughout the night, Facebook and the media were sleeping. There were no new updates. By morning, every celebrated how the community came together. Duluth sent buses to Superior. Emergency respondents from around the area pitched in. There were no deaths. School children were evacuated to the DECC. People opened their homes to evacuees. And, the air was said to be normal. For the most part, life resumed as normal. Businesses opened. People went about life as usual. Despite the air quality being deemed “normal” this seemed impossible, considering that a giant asphalt fire raged on for eight hours creating a plume of black smoke that could be seen 50 miles away. But, it made me wonder what normal is? Maybe that amount of pollutants in the air is normal – in places like Los Angelas or Beijing where millions of cars fill the air with exhaust each day. I considered that perhaps our baseline or our normal is the equivalent of a raging asphalt fire. What is normal? Normal does not necessarily equate to healthy….

Lessons:

Conversations:

The first lesson that I drew from this was that there should be ongoing conversations with friends or loved ones about what to do in the case of disasters. I feel that we should challenge each other and ask lots of questions. Where would we evacuate? Why wouldn’t you want to evacuate? (I have chickens, I like my bed, I feel safe, I don’t like being a guest at someone’s house, etc.) What would it take to convince you that this is needed? Where would we take pets? How would we get somewhere safe? What are important things you would want to pack? I think that these kind of conversations could get everyone on the same page. There is a social dynamic to evacuating. People look to each other for cues that a situation is safe or unsafe or if they are too worried or too unconcerned. I think that conversation could help family groups or friend groups make better decisions in crisis.

Expect Disasters:

I feel like a nutty, apocalypse prepared person with a year of food stocked in my fallout shelter. But really, disasters should be expected. This is because we live in a profit driven society. Safety precautions involve increased fixed capital costs to capitalists. The drive for profits means that there will be short cuts. I am sure that anyone who has worked anywhere can see this. Safety is usurped for profits when workers are not properly trained, are given defective equipment, tools or machinery is old or outdated, work days are lengthened, workplaces are understaffed, workers are overly tired, or any of the very ordinary conditions across all sectors of the economy. Husky Energy has a history of fires and oil spills at other locations and the Superior refinery in particular had a $21,000 fine in 2015 for an OSHA violation related to chemical storage and emergency response. While the fine was paid and OSHA reported the problem was resolved, the fine is nothing compared to the nearly $10 billion revenue that Husky Energy makes each year. The drive for profits will always drive the trend towards lack of safety. Therefore, any work place is a potential source of injury. However, some work places operate on such a scale or with such dangerous materials that the danger extends from the every day risks faced by particular sets of workers to entire communities. I remember in 1992, when Duluth and Superior were evacuated due to the benzene spill. Although I was a child living over 50 miles away, I watched the news as the cloud spread. I worried that it would come all the way to us. My father worked in West Duluth (where he had suffered several serious on the job injuries over the years- the individual side of worker safety). He was among the 80,000 people who evacuated that day. Thus, I have lived through two disasters of a scale large enough to require evacuation. Will it be the last?

Struggle is the Only Buffer Against Excesses of Capitalism:

I think this is an important moment for people in Duluth and Superior, since it is an opportunity fight for more safety. There are plenty of concerned people who want more information and more testing of air and soil. Many want an end to the use of hydrogen flouride at Husky Energy. Some want an end to the refinery altogether or have used this as an opportunity to not only critique Husky, but Embridge, which also uses the facility. The crisis has revealed many gaps in how disasters are handled, how environments are monitored, and how safety is ensured. If this anger congeals into struggle, we can hopefully curtail some of the worst excesses of capitalism in our community and lessen the risk of future disasters. The small measures of safety and environmental protection that we enjoy were won by struggle and will only be defended by the struggles of workers, but also social movements like environmental movements. I have seen some cynicism about the effectiveness of protest, but I think that this is the perfect time for protest, petitions, public hearings, or the number of other methods of resistance which are being planned or discussed.

Challenge Complacency:

Honestly, it is hard to care about everything all of the time. I have felt fatigued by activism and am often impressed by the amount of emotional energy that others can put into continuing to inform members of our community about this disaster. I lack that energy. I care…but I am tired. Like the day that I didn’t get enough sleep, I just want to pull my blankets over my head and hide from the world. I commend their efforts. It is very easy to be complacent. Should I plant a garden this year? Should I care? Everything I eat and drink is inundated with plastics and toxins of some kind. The air I breathe is full of pollutants from the everyday functioning of our fossil fuel based economy. At some point in my life, like almost everyone else, I am going to get cancer. There are thousands of terrible things that happen every moment of every day. That doesn’t even include the ordinary challenges of simply living. Everything is terrible all of the time. The only way to make it better is to fight for a better world But, that suuuuure is tiresome. Somehow, we must work together to challenge complacency. I don’t have an good answer about how to care- but I think it helps to hold on to and grow that kernel of anger. Anger is frowned upon, especially for women- but I care when I remember something that made me angry. I am angry that I wasn’t well informed. I am angry that many people in the world live in the shadow of the next catastrophe. I am angry that life on our planet is going extinct and that we altering our planet in terrifying, irreversible ways. I am angry that every day living for workers means potential injury from fast food deep fryers to nuclear reactors. Yep, there we go. Anger. Gotta love it. It is as refreshing as a hot shower after a week without a hot water heater.

Knowledge is Power:

This is a super cliche conclusion, but really, it is helpful to know things! I didn’t even know the NAME of the refinery, much less what it does or how it functions. I still don’t know much about the Husky Energy Refinery. I am thankful that there are many people in the community who are asking questions and sharing resources to learn more.

I am sure I could draw other conclusions, but that’s all I’ve got for now. There are other local activists who are far more informed and whose opinions have congealed into more meaningful reflection. While I have been a lazy activist lately, I am committed to being a part of the struggle in the months ahead. On Wednesday of this week there will be a protest against the liability waivers that Husky is having injured people sign so that they are not liable for future health problems. We will all have long memories of the evacuation day. With time, memories often vanish into novelty. So, I hope it is not a memory of an isolated event but an ongoing struggle and conversation.